War

Return of the Anti-War Right

Sen. Rand Paul is among those insisting on a less aggressive approach to foreign policy.

|

Sen. Rand Paul
U.S. Senate

In the February 1987 issue of reason, Bill Kauffman wrote about the history of the "anti-war capitalists," explaining that while this cohort of activists did not look like the kind of protesters that were most prominent in the "peace movement" of the 1960s, '70s, and even '80s, they could trace their intellectual roots through a long tradition of libertarian anti-war thinking. Kauffman explained that before the era of the left-wing peace movement, opponents of war were "midwestern industrialists and retired military officers, publishing giants and Texas oilmen, or minerals executives and Great Plains farmers."

That such people once dominated the anti-war movement, Kauffman noted, was "an inconvenient fact that has been consigned to the memory hole by left and right alike." Non-intervention, wrote Kauffman, had become part and parcel of a "grand mosaic of socialism, ecologism, holistic feminism, etc.," ideas that might turn off the majority of ordinary Americans who had, in Kauffman's view, retained a distinctly Jeffersonian view of foreign policy and non-intervention.

Today, the idea of non-interventionism has re-entered the mainstream, in part because of the growing influence of libertarianism in American politics. An April Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 47 percent of Americans say the U.S. should become "less active" in global affairs and only 19 percent want the U.S. to be "more active," a mirror image of the results of a similar poll taken in 2001. War weariness helped Barack Obama become president in 2008. And it may have contributed to his victory over the more openly interventionist Mitt Romney in 2012. American war-weariness arguably also helped keep the U.S. out of a military conflagration in Syria for which neoconservatives and liberal interventionists were pushing.

Anti-war sentiment has made inroads again on the right, which for years has been dominated by hawks. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), who has consistently polled near the top of the list of potential 2016 Republican candidates, has made a name for himself in part by insisting on a less aggressive approach to foreign policy, much as his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, did before him. Republicans are even beginning to rethink Iraq: In a February poll by the Pew Research Center, only 36 percent said they believed that America achieved its objectives during the war in that country.

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.

119 responses to “Return of the Anti-War Right

  1. Huffington Post reporter reports from Ferguson, Missouri, proves that HuffPo only hires the best and brightest.

    Ryan J. ReillyVerified account
    ?@ryanjreilly
    I believe these are rubber bullets, can anyone confirm? #Fergurson pic.twitter.com/iCsFi6qoIa

    Ryan J. Reilly ? @ryanjreilly

    I retract that suggestion, they are earplugs. Apologies.

    1. Funny but I’d give the guy a break. At least he’s doing his job.

      1. Is ‘doing the job of journalism’ =

        “asking the entire planet stupid questions that you should probably ask someone standing next to you before advertising your complete ignorance?”

        because when these same people later write pieces making Professional Assertions based on their *attention to detail and situational awareness*, it does have the minor effect of undermining their credibility.

        1. “asking the entire planet stupid questions that you should probably ask someone standing next to you before advertising your complete ignorance?”

          You think the guy next to him as any idea about bullets?

          That’s the real issue with journalism. They’re all fantastically ignorant of a variety of subjects, but they pretend to be experts.

          1. I suspect the overwhelming majority of people, even reporters, have seen earplugs or bullets, or at least have an intuition of how these things should look.

            1. The fact that said journo could not apply an ounce of deductive reasoning and determine that objects as low-mass as ‘earplugs’ would make useless projectiles speaks incredibly poorly for the person’s judgement on any other topic.

              It suggests that they do not question their first impressions at all, and completely lack discriminating powers of observation.

              Add to this: they thought they should then Tweet that shit.

        2. But the person next to him could be some Rethuglikkkan Tea Bagger!

    2. I see a promotion for that boy, get ’em to do all the pr0-antigun stories and make ’em editor in chief.

    3. -Or-

      How to tell that you’re a child of privilege who’s never shot a gun or worked around noisy machinery.

      1. Or been to see live music.

  2. Cop:”Since you’re not using that Aircraft carrier in the Persian gulf anymore, you think I can use it in Lake Michigan?”

    Let the state fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. Not talking about the terrorists, but the weapons the state is using over there.

    1. How about if we stop buying weapons for fighting over there so they won’t use them here on us.

  3. The reason Ron Paul never climbed in the polls was because his antiwar thought often sounded like leftist drivel, not the sensible noninterventionism of the Old Right.

    If you give Republican voters a choice between jingoistic interventionism and America bashing, they’ll pick the former. But if you offer them a pro-American vision of restraint abroad, they will flock to it.

    1. Disagree on Paul. For someone who is fundamentally a terrible politician in both tone and willingness to compromise for the advancement of his career (he’s widely viewed as a crazy radical by conventional conservatives like my parents), he pulled tons of support.

      “We just marched in, so we can just march out” was a huge populist rallying cry for an Internet generation that never knew there could be such a thing as an Old Right that despised the neoconservative agenda and considered it even worse than the traditional progressive warfare state. It’s not identical as the America First crowd of the world wars in that it’s more focused on worrying about other nation’s civilians, but it has the same foundation that American kids are dying for the sake of politicians’ ambitions.

      1. It’s not identical as the America First crowd of the world wars in that it’s more focused on worrying about other nation’s civilians, but it has the same foundation that American kids are dying for the sake of politicians’ ambitions.

        And also has less racism.

        1. Racism was the one thing everyone could agree on.

          1. Like the gold ole days when everyone hated those filthy, freckle ridden potato eaters.

      2. He pulled in tons of support because he was the only one saying the things he did.

      3. Disagree on Paul. For someone who is fundamentally a terrible politician in both tone and willingness to compromise for the advancement of his career (he’s widely viewed as a crazy radical by conventional conservatives like my parents), he pulled tons of support.

        And he would have pulled tons more support if he’d stopped making arguments that are tailor made to turn off the Republican base.

        “We need to get out of this war because it’s enriching giant corporations, killing thousands of Iraqi civilians, and creating a permanent American imperialism!”

        “We need to get out of this war because it’s costing the American taxpayer billions, because thousands of American boys are dying for the problems of another country, and because it’s creating a permanent bureaucracy which will cost trillions in the long run!”

        Both statements are true, but the second one gets Republicans to vote for you.

        1. There were conservatives making this argument but they were just ignored in the rush to have Uncle Sam put a boot to someone’s behind following 9/11.

        2. Yeah, but the whole appeal of Paul is that he doesn’t compromise his message. As much as he and his staff drive me crazy because they’re the anti-Obama when it comes to glamour and slick messaging–that stupid tweet about Chris Kyle comes to mind–he’s always been a pretty guileless character who’s a fish out of water in Washington, much less when he’s sharing a stage with sleaze like Guiliani.

          That’s why he was able to build a weird coalition of JBS types, Austro-libertarian radicals, and now new libertarians who, emboldened by the Internet, have decided that the world of acceptable political beliefs might include some outside the space separating John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

          1. Yeah, but the whole appeal of Paul is that he doesn’t compromise his message.

            The message doesn’t need to be compromised. There’s nothing wrong with emphasizing different truths to different audiences, so long as you are telling the truth, and your actual policy prescriptions do not change.

            Take the Drug War. I can sell ending the Drug War to both left and right, by relying on different facts about the Drug War. Republicans don’t care about racial disparity in sentencing, as a general rule. Democrats don’t care about the enormous cost of the thing. You have to know your audience.

            1. Democrats don’t care about the enormous cost of anything.

              ftfy

            2. Paradoxically, the political incompetence is part of Ron’s grass-roots appeal, as he doesn’t seem even consider tailoring his message for the audience. He just says what he thinks, and by 2008 the Old Right-ish resurgence on the heels of the W disaster became too big for the neocons and Kirkian remnant to ignore him.

    2. That would be a great way to proceed. Can the GOP stomach it?

      1. I’m an ex-republican with conservative leanings. Think Rand Paul is a decent comminicator compared to his dad. However, there’s some ground to speak to conservatives-libertarians on a smatterring of topics. Medical marijanna, fine, pick it up with your prescription at the Pharmacy. Same sex unions, full 100% legal rights, fine; just don’t force military officers to speak out condoning such. Abortions and birth control, no problem, just don’t force the populace to pay for it against their conscience.

        Most topics of less govt can be packaged to conservatives. I may not agree with your vice or sin, but you can be my good neighbor and vice-a-versa if you respect the individual rights I choose. Quit making Christians out to be domestic enemies, allow ’em to run hospitals and charities and stuff.

    3. Ron Paul is and remains a pretty terrible communicator in person. His ideas have genuine appeal but what built the movement was the efforts of his grassroots campaign and subsequent groups like Young Americans for Liberty.

    4. “If you give Republican voters a choice between jingoistic interventionism and America bashing, they’ll pick the former. But if you offer them a pro-American vision of restraint abroad, they will flock to it.”

      ^^^ THIS!!!!! ^^^
      ^^^ THIS!!!!! ^^^
      ^^^ THIS!!!!! ^^^

      1. Republicans and conservatives are more capitalistic than war bent. Their perceived push for wars can be attributed to; IF we’re going in, may as well turn the sand into glass and get the boys back home and not have to worry about building the country up again. But actually, conservatives are as anxious to get in a war as pre WWII Americans.

    5. Completely agree. It is instructive to see how far ahead of Ron Paul Nigel Garage is, despite being in a country more hostile to classical liberalism.

      1. Too many libertarians are reflexively anti-nationalism. American nationalism in particular is marked not by a devotion to blood and soil, but by a reverence for certain ideas.

        An American nationalist is a strict constructionist, a federalist, a defender of the rights of man as embodied in the founding charters of the Republic. He might not be a libertarian, but he’s a damn sight better than a progressive or a neocon.

        1. Good grief Virginian one can almost hear you panting writing that

        2. Even radicals are in favor of coalition building with the tallest political dwarves. That we have loud debates about moral principles and the role of reason in political philosophy doesn’t mean that there’s not a real-world, ordinal ranking of politicians.

          No one doubts that it’s far better to live under an Obama than it is a Nero, but that doesn’t mean that we go around singing Obama’s praises. Same with Reagan vs. Obama or Coolidge vs. Reagan.

        3. In fairness, the US was and is really more of an ideological, classically liberal state than it is a nation-state on the order of France. “Nationalism” in the US can therefore either refer to the pre-nationalist concept of patriotism (to the ideals of the Revolution and Constitution), or idealizing some crude ethnic idea about the nature of the white people who originally populated the country (which interestingly enough found expression in much of late 19th – early 20th century progressive thought).

      2. Most of Paul’s support comes from pockets of the nation, as the US operates on a much larger scale more akin to Europe rather than the UK. Do you think that Garage would have the same widespread appeal if he had to leave the historical stronghold of common law and birthplace of natural rights to appeal to, say, Frenchmen?

        And we do have our version of Garage in the United States, namely Rand Paul. But it took 30 years of radical Ron before Rand could become a big-time player.

        1. Farage

          1. I knew that looked wrong. I blame TIT for mizzling me.

            1. I enjoy being tit-mizzled.

            2. Yeah, my auto-correct fucked up. My bad.

    6. Agree.

      IMO much of Republican pro-war stance is actually more like a reaction AGAINST leftist anti-Americanism.

      After hearing for decades of how terrible America is, proving that America is the world’s greatest empire became more of a point of pride. People rally round the flag when attacked. Something the left constantly counsels us about other countries, but never applies to Americans.

    7. I really have to agree on this. While I voted for Paul in 2012, I probably would have come around a lot earlier if he didn’t sound like he was suggesting the U.S. were to blame for the world’s problems. As a general rule, if you’re trying to appeal to a Republican audience, you want to suggest that America is more awesome than the rest of the world. If you want to appeal to a Democratic audience, you want to suggest that the audience is more awesome than the rest of America. Paul erred by doing the latter.

    1. Are we seeing double?! Nope, that’s just what happens when two of the state’s instruments of physical force bust out the exact same look. Time for a fashion face-off!

      Oakland protestors got an up-close peek at this still-stylish accessory back in 2011, but as the fashion-savvy among them probably noticed, American troops had beaten them to the punch. The resemblance is really uncanny.

      Verdict: Police. It takes real guts to go after the army’s trademark look, but these cops pulled it off.

      1. Kevlar is the new black.

  4. That such people once dominated the anti-war movement, Kauffman noted, was “an inconvenient fact that has been consigned to the memory hole by left and right alike.”

    The MSNBC segment with Gillespie the other day was a good reminder of this inconvenient fact. The host claimed that the American right was “traditionally” the interventionist wing of the political spectrum, and I kept wondering what the hell he meant by “traditional.”

    Until Kristol and the neocons diluted and subsumed the Taft and Kirk branches of the right, right-wingers were the loudest critics of all of the left’s wars. For God’s sake, 95% of the reason why lefty historians love old-fashioned Democrats like Wilson and FDR is because of their wars. You don’t get to praise old-fashioned lefty warmongers with one breath and then call the right the traditional party of war with the next.

    1. You don’t get to praise old-fashioned lefty warmongers with one breath and then call the right the traditional party of war with the next.

      Can you say, “doublethink”?

    2. I think they are historically truncated, the only historical anti-war movement that resonates with them was the anti-Vietnam war movement (which was a very visible movement) which seemed stridently leftist and was derided by many on the right.

      1. And those anti-war protesters were primarily spoiled middle class college students that knew jackshit about what they were screaming about, so the contempt was understandable even if the war was not a justifiable one.

        The embarrassment they caused by spitting on returning vets is one of the reasons why we have a cult of troop worship today.

        1. Sometimes some pretty awful people advance liberty in a big way. Bringing the draft and our involvement in that war to an end was one example.

          1. Bringing the draft and our involvement in that war to an end

            Richard Nixon did both those things. The smelly morons in the street had jack shit to do with it.

            1. You think Nixon did those out of the goodness of his heart? The war was becoming increasingly unpopular and that swung Nixon, and the protests help highlight and foster that unpopularity.

              1. Or he did it because he was first and foremost a technocrat who didn’t see any point continuing the mess in Vietnam, and who was persuaded of the merits of an AVF by academics who were pushing for it at the time.

                One of the real great tragedies of Watergate is that the positive contributions of Richard Nixon have been overlooked. Nixon ended the draft and the war in Vietnam. For libertarians and principled liberals, that’s more then you’ll get from most Presidents.

                1. A major aspect of the Vietnam War’s unpopularity was the perception among supporters that the US was being constrained and was unable/unwilling to do what was necessary to win.

                  It wasn’t just people thinking the war should not have been fought.

                2. I think Nixon was a very politically astute and minded fellow and that likely had more to do with his decision than some white paper report. Ending the draft helped him politically (by undercutting the movement that was increasingly drawing middle class kids into it and was creating the appearance of scary disorder and disrespect in the streets on a regular basis), so he did it.

                  1. Actually, Bo, Nixon ran on ending the war. So, that kind of undercuts your suggestion that it was due to outside pressure from the war protesters. For much of Nixon’s base, a tough stand against the “dirty hippies” would have been a feature, not a bug.

                3. That’s a little bit like saying;

                  “It’s all right that Nixon kicked us int he junk repeatedly. After all, he massaged our nuts afterwords.”

              2. You think Nixon did those out of the goodness of his heart?

                …and the goodness of his heart matters a great deal.

          2. Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan talking in front of Congress had vastly more to do with ending the draft than the hippies in the streets.

            1. As a fan of both, I seriously doubt that. That’s like saying Henry Louis Gates testifying in front of congress about racial disparity in our criminal justice system would have more impact on political action on the subject than what’s going on in St. Louis right now.

              1. Are you really arguing that people in positions of power in DC care about what happens in flyover country?

                That’s some staggering levels of naivete.

                1. I think they care about their own hides and they want to avoid scandal. Academic experts have been talking about racial disparity in law enforcement forever with little result from our leaders, but look at them leap over each other to comment on what is going on this week. Protests and conflicts may or may not change minds, but what they can do is bring attention to things that otherwise would be quietly ignored and downplayed.

                  1. I think they care about their own hides and they want to avoid scandal.

                    Scandal? For what? It’s a local PD. No one is going to blame anyone in DC for this.

                    1. But they’re going to ask them about it, and they’ll have to comment and/or act, and that’s fraught with negative new making potential

                    2. But they’re going to ask them about it, and they’ll have to comment and/or act

                      Citation needed. Obama has gone months without taking a single question from the press. There’s been no outrage.

                    3. He’s commented several times already

                    4. Google Obama Ferguson

                      He’s already taking heat from both sides on his comments. Newsworthy events force pols to take public positions in ways that think tank and academic discussions rarely do

                2. To be fair, look who you’re talking to. 🙂

              2. Fan of Greenspan? Go on….

                1. Well, early Greenie of course

      2. I think that’s it; it’s ahistorical politics. They’re privileging living memory because they don’t understand the different currents and political philosophies that led the left and right to their mainstream positions today.

        Which is why they can act surprised when “right-wing” libertarians despise neocons like Bush even more than they do.

        1. How many movies are there which focus on the 1960s and the anti-war movement plays a big role? Now how many are on the 1930’s or 1910’s and do the same?

          The movements of the 1960’s had the benefit to be widely covered by television and film and so you’re right they are more firmly in the nation’s memory.

          1. How many movies are there which focus on the 1960s and the anti-war movement plays a big role? Now how many are on the 1930’s or 1910’s and do the same?

            So you’re saying progressives largely get their information about history from ahistorical films put out by Hollywood and then base their philosophy around the gibbering nonsense of Hollywood screenwriters.

            I agree.

            1. Any history that gets run over and over is going to get absorbed into people’s minds more so than that which is not. There’s a reason, for example, why so many more people are aware of Nazi atrocities than Soviet ones, and I bet it has to do with the sheer imbalance of films about the two subjects.

              1. Plenty of people are aware of Soviet atrocities, despite the dearth of Hollywood movies. Most of these people are on the right and libertarian circles, so again:

                you’re saying progressives largely get their information about history from ahistorical films put out by Hollywood and then base their philosophy around the gibbering nonsense of Hollywood screenwriters.

                1. What percent of self identified conservatives do you think are knowledgable about Soviet atrocities? I’ll grant it’s higher than that for liberals but I doubt it’s even a majority.

                  1. I’ll grant it’s higher than that for liberals but I doubt it’s even a majority.

                    Oh it’s more then 50% of self-described conservatives for sure. People who venerate Reagan know about the gulags Bo.

          2. How many movies are there which focus on the 1960s and the anti-war movement plays a big role? Now how many are on the 1930’s or 1910’s and do the same?

            The movements of the 1960’s had the benefit to be widely covered by television and film and so you’re right they are more firmly in the nation’s memory.

            True. Also, the anti-war folks from the 1930’s were convincingly shown that there was good reason for war by the concentration camps, rape of Nanjing, Bataan death march, etc. Would anyone in 1950 or 1960 admit they were against fighting the Nazis or Japanese? The elephants had good reason to forget their positions. And the donkeys have no reason today to bring it up.

    3. Reagan was the only conservative president of my lifetime (maybe JFK somewhat). He got us out of UN Lebonon instead of war. Grenada was more of a military mission than a war. At least he knew a little geo-polotics.

      Being pro-military, national strength is not the same as being pro-war.

      1. The problem with pro military national strength is that it often leads to McCain’s ‘what’s the good of this great big military if we don’t use it’ thinking

        1. There’s a reference to Emperor Palpatine and his clone army in there somewhere. . .

        2. I think that was Madeleine Albright, but I often get her confused with McCain.

          1. I think that was Madeleine Albright, but I often get her confused with McCain

            I think I’d rather fuck John McCain.

            How sad is that.

        3. A strong nation is a prosperous and free one. The essentially demilitarized American Republic was able to mobilize and demobilize quit successfully for most of its history without ever maintaining a large and expensive standing army.

          In fact it’s only since going to the big standing army that we’ve started losing wars. The US never lost a war from 1776 to the end of the old system following WWII. Since then there have been stalemates, defeats, and quagmires galore.

          It’s easy to see why that is.

          1. War of 1812?

            If the goals were the annexation of Canada, we lost that one.

            1. The US survived, despite the fact that the capital was invaded and burned. I’d call that a victory.

          2. The two expeditions into Russia after WWI weren’t exactly successful.

        4. Anyone that shoots a wild burro and then tells the press it charged him would have a problem being in charge of our military aka McCain.
          That aside, we’d be in a stronger position with Russia and Mid-East if USA had placed anti-missles in Poland and CZ a decade ago. A longsighted leader tilts military power so that the enemies of the world keep each other somewhat in check rather than piff the lives of 1000s of youth.
          On Israel, they can fend for themselves, but what leader pushes for them to give up what little strategic high ground they have on their perimeters to enemies?
          Standing armies are a problem though. I’d be more concerned with Homeland Security and the dwindling of local law enforcement such as county sheriffs.

        5. McCain’s ‘what’s the good of this great big military if we don’t use it’ thinking

          Though McCain shares the sentiment you’re paraphrasing a Madeline Albright quote from the 1990s. I recall conservatives being appalled…

          It is why W ran on a “humble foreign policy” to differentiate himself from Pops and Clinton. Pledging to avoid war was the way to “get out the base” for the GOP in 2000.

    1. I can only hope her talk includes some comments about reducing carbon emissions and perhaps a bit on promoting mass transit.

    2. I don’t want to be anywhere near Hillary Clintons passion.

      Unless she’s Jesus in the remake of Passion of the Christ.

  5. How’s about putting someone in charge that’s ever read a book on Geo-polotics? My God, we’ve could’ve fought 1/10th the post WWII wars and protected our national interest 10X’s as great. We could’ve done a world of good for us and the planet. This isn’t playing 20/20 hindsite, this is having someone not beholden to petty power games, someone that actually cares about assuming the role of leader of benevolent empire nation.

    OK, I’m awake now, must’ve been dreaming during my nap.

    1. “benevolent empire nation”

      Is that a thing?

  6. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like the leftist war protestors evaporated when Obama entered the White House, the right’s anti-war rhetoric will evaporate as soon as one of their own takes the helm.

    1. the ‘anti war left’,is very much in favor of force and violence and guns to get their domestic agenda passed and implemented

      1. Just as the right loves all things military.

        1. Neocons mostly,hard to call them ‘right’.Big gov warmongers I’d say.Both parties love spending,just not on the same things.During the Bush the lesser;s years,the amount of cash grew and grew,and they spent all of it and then some

    2. Yes and no, sarcasmic. I think it’s like just about every other time “the other guy does it”. Some go right back to doing it and some learn.

  7. “Sen. Rand Paul is among those insisting on a less aggressive approach to foreign policy.”

    Less aggressive? Talk about setting a low bar (Sen. McCain notwithstanding).

    1. All we need now is a video of Mr. Rogers advocating nuclear holocaust and my Sunday will be complete.

  8. Republicans are even beginning to rethink Iraq: In a February poll by the Pew Research Center, only 36 percent said they believed that America achieved its objectives during the war in that country.

    BP and Shell either got the oil or they didn’t. It’s not a matter of belief.

    1. *British* Petroleum
      Royal *Dutch* Shell

      OMG THE INVASION OF IRAQ WUZ ALL A PLOY OF THE EUROS!? WE WUZ SNOOKERED?

      1. Oh they weren’t the only ones who were given access to the “sea of oil.” Not that oil companies really have nationalities, or that the US government acting on their behalf is considering patriotism.

        1. It wuz teh capitalists what done it!

          Tony will now explain how “spending trillions of dollars” to provide “access” to purchasing oil previously wide-open and available to oil companies SANS warfare actually makes any sense.

          1. This might be relevant.

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/…..il-juhasz/

            “Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.”

            1. it is remarkable how you manage to confuse an Op Ed by a professional oil-industry activist/critic as ‘objective insight’ into how the global energy markets function

              Although i’m sure with your extensive background doing research on global energy markets, you could actually make a case yourself, right Bo?

              Also, its kinda crazy how, if the plan of ‘the West’ was to ‘steal’ Iraqs oil (an odd expression for ‘paying the iraqi government for the right to do business with them’)…

              ..that apparently *china* seems to get the best end of the deal?

              maybe i need to read more hyper-partisan anti-oil activists to parse this confusion.

              Because why did we spend those trillions, if NOT to ‘rob’ iraqi oil?

            2. And since you seem to prefer hyper-partisan editorials as your sources of self-edification….

              …here’s one a bit heavier on facts

              Not that it matters much.

              some people want to reduce issues to silly, stupid cartoonish versions of reality. Pretending that the Iraq War was a scheme by global energy concerns to ‘steal’ oil they already were buying/selling beforehand is pretty fucking ridiculous.

              If the US really were that dominated by Big Oil, they’d really have done a far better job of this whole ‘invade and rape a nation’s natural resources’ thing.

  9. Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

    Through the years, the GOP let themselves get hijacked by the pseudo-Protestant evangelicals of the “Moral” Majority and the “Christian” Coalition of American who partnered with the pro-Israel, ex-Democrats Neoconservatives.

    Until the GOP exorcises itself from such snakes, they will continue to struggle in re-election efforts. Their only hope can be epic flubs like Obamacare.

    1. The Dems love Jesus too when it comes to taking from one group and giving to another at the point of a gun{laws}

      1. For most the 20th century, Dems loved the Pope rather than Jesus. Slightly more “white” catholics seem to support the GOPhers over the Dumbocrats these days.

        Catholics still love the Pope the most. To them, Jesus is merely a church prop nailed to a wall.

        1. “”Catholics still love the Pope the most.””

          I find your ideas intriguing

  10. As far as “anti-war anything” goes..

    …i think referring to any actual politicians as ‘anti-war’ makes about as much sense as calling certain fish ‘anti-water’.

    whatever the political posture may be at any given moment…

    …it has less to do with that politician’s beliefs about any given specific security threat, or ongoing global conflict, and America’s best interests in getting involved or not getting involved…

    …so much as the relative advantage that *saying so* may present at the given moment. Particularly when their own opinion on the matter usually *doesnt make a fucking difference* at the time.

    Plenty of politicians are “anti-war” before they actually *get elected* – then everything changes when they are the ones seen as responsible for US security interests or responding to the concerns of our allies.

    “The Right” is not any more or less ‘aggressive’ than it was ever before. There is simply less political advantage to be gained by pretending to be so.

    Same with TEAM BLUE, which despite its tendency to posture itself as peace lovin’ group-hug multilaterists…. has never seen a fight they weren’t spoiling to get into.

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves patting people on the back for holding convenient positions.

    1. Having said that, I think the advantage of libertarians or traditional conservatives have on fulfilling their anti-war bona fides when in office is the belief that the government is incapable of doing anything right.

  11. Speaking of our “unwillingly intervening” president…

    …seems as though its becoming clear that the Liberation of Mount Sinjar is more than a little bit of a media-invented fiction.

    Because the “40,000” people at risk? turned out to be ~5,000. Of whom 2,000 actually already lived on said mountain.

    but hell, it provided a great story to help sell the image of a president “dragged unwillingly” into a conflict…

    Sinjar Surprise: How the U.S. May Have Misjudged the Refugee Situation in Iraq

    e.g. “After inserting a small military reconnaissance team atop the mountain, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said late Wednesday that the situation was no longer as bad as anyone thought. There are now only about 5,000 civilians on the mountain, and they are in “better condition than previously believed,” according to Hagel’s statement.

    For roughly 2,000 of those civilians, mostly from the minority Yazidi religious sect, Mount Sinjar is home and they do not intend to leave. Now it seems the dire situation has improved and that focus is shifting to refugee camps in Syria and Iraqi Kurdistan.

    The question now becomes how the Pentagon’s expansive, weeklong surveillance mission over northern Iraq …apparently gave the United States government highly inaccurate information

    Yellowcake Refugees.

  12. Much has changed since 1987. We are now the world’s largest debtor nation with $17.5 trillion in debt. And even with over 100 military bases overseas, we still cannot even protect our own borders. Which are so porous, 20 million illegal aliens live in America now with impunity.

    Seems all we have done is antagonize the world in the name of freedom and democracy. A cruel oxymoron when you consider America was founded on the force used to fight the Indian Wars.

    The situation in the middle east where we have spent the last 13 years has caused many to think of Vietnam all over again.

    War and intervention in other peoples affairs is too expensive. We spend $1.6 billion a day on national defense. Plus another $90 billion a year running the VA’s numerous clinics trying to fix broken soldiers. To say nothing of those who sacrifice their lives on the battlefields in far away lands.

    The MIC and the politicians they have bought and paid for may like wars overseas, but it’s been very hard on the taxpayers. It needs to stop. America is not the worlds police force.

    1. We’re more like the world’s hockey referee. Somebody has to keep the fight on the ice from spilling over into the stands and claiming the spectators.

  13. OK wow lets fireup them goombas already.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

    1. Did anonbot just call for a genocide of Italians?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.