Good. Because terrorism is real. Not good about civilian casualties, but try fighting a war without at least some of that.
Drones are a recent invention. W didn't have them at first - his administration is responsible for adopting their use - and when he expanded their use he did it secretly. Likewise with the "special ops" - do you really believe that the Obama expanded US military and covert actions from 60 to 138 countries? That W's 700 or so US military and "intelligence" establishments in foreign countries were expanded to 1700 - 1800? Obama took W's drone program out of the hands of the CIA, reduced the secrecy of it, and began the practice of at least partially accounting for it as military operations. Likewise with the US "special ops" in dozens of foreign countries: Obama put the military on the budget, reduced the secrecy, etc. That was a good thing. The next - Republican - executive restored the standard Reagan and W approach, while continuing the expansion. So part of the bad that was Obama expanding W's drone program and "special ops" and so forth was simply Obama's administration providing more accurate information about ongoing practices, as he did with the budget and the torture prisons and so forth. And part of it was a Democratic administration supporting or continuing bad policy established by a Republican one - typically (and a bit comically) the most severe criticism one can make of bad behavior by a Democratic politician since 1980. And it was bad. Obama deserves much criticism - and he gets it, from the left especially. But there's no equivalence with Reagan, Bush, or W - "Both Sides Don't". And it's the Republicans now because the Republican Party co-opted the white racist and fundie faction of the old Democratic Party. So it isn't the Republicans now by chance, but by design. The Republicans now are the bad Democrats of the distant past - the same people, deliberately and purposefully organized. More to the point: it has been the Republicans (pace their Blue Dog allies) for the entire adult life of most US citizens. All attempts to palm off these disasters on "both sides", all attempts to introduce some kind of equivalence between the Republican Party's responsibility and anyone else's, all mentions of "Republicans and Democrats" say, are bs. We have a normal Party, plus regular politics and people, everybody else, on one hand. We have an emergent fascist Party, on the other. It's in a class all its own. And that's why "US Out" is going nowhere until the Republican Party has been defeated, crippled, and if possible simply destroyed.
The only problem with that is that the Republican Party is supported by (roughly) half of the people in the U.S. (even though the financial support comes largely from other sources). You're not going to "destroy" half of the U.S. population so you need to find another way to deal with the problem.
? Destroying the Republican Party is expected to leave almost all current Republicans alive and well - better off, actually. And the large base of support - although nowhere near "half" - is part of the urgency. This isn't a fringe movement - it's critically dangerous.
My point is that you are going to "destroy" the Republican Party if they have the support of half the population.
It doesn't. But even if it did, it would have to be destroyed - fascist movements are dangerous, and the Republican Party has been taken over by one. I'm sure regular Republicans can find ways to do politics without that particular Party. If we borrow the name for the new setup, they might not even notice - they aren't the most observant folks.
Nothing racist about it. Afghanis and Kurds are helping us because they know the horrors of the Taliban and ISIS.
If you borrow the name you haven't destroyed the Republican Party. Parties and politics change all the time. Of course the current policies and behavior of the Republican Party is abhorrent. We don't need to discuss the obvious do we? Should we discuss how Trump is narcissistic?
Unless you have. The fascist movement that took over with Nixon/Reagan kept the name. Call it a "change", then. Obvious to whom? Until the continual repetition of "both sides" and "both Democrats and Republicans" and "no difference between the major Parties" and "bipartisan compromise" and "partisanship (in general)" and so forth is driven from the public discussion into the realm of straight lines for mediocre comics, continual reminders that all such language is bullshit are probably necessary. Failure to do that let the Party off after W&Cheney, hide behind bogus crap like the "Tea Party" - that cost us a lot. That's why we aren't out of Iraq and Afghanistan, notice - to get the US out of these wars, out of the business of killing people for the benefit of Wilbur Ross and Rex Tillerson, we have to destroy the Republican Party.
you miss understand me. i wasn't saying the us involvement was based on racism. i was saying your support of the Us's involvement was based in racism given your stated beliefs that white judeochristians have a moral right to invade and conquer non white non judeochristians because they can "do more". ive never seen anyone push the white mans burden harder since kipling.
That's true and that's why I didn't say that. Adding comments are Rex Tillerson and Wilbur Ross doesn't strengthen your argument however. It's a nutty way to argue.
It isn't a way to argue. You may have lost track of the argument - recall: The point was to firmly and repetitively disagree with that. America's bad involvements - the major mistakes and crimes and screwups and shitshows in other people's countries - is a Republican Party "thing" and has been for several decades now. And that is central, basic, to US politics. Anyone who wants to get the US out of those kinds of "involvements" has to deal, immediately and directly and head on, with the fascist takeover of the Republican Party - Wilbur Ross and Rex Tillerson being handy illustrations. That's how we got into these "involvements", and that's what's preventing us from getting out.
Nations have the moral right to invade other nations who happen to be responsible for the worst incident of terrorism in that nation's history. I couldn't care less if it was Finland who was responsible.
In abstract, sure. But we are talking about US "involvements", in real life. Saudi Arabia - the single country most responsible for terrorism against the US, including the worst attack to date - has been our "ally" and never invaded (or even seriously threatened) by us. Iraq - the most significant US "involvement" of the post-Nixon era - was among the countries in its region least responsible for terrorism against the US. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Germany, Israel, and Florida, were responsible for more terrorist attacks against the US than Iraq. The governments the US installed in Central and South America have been responsible for more terrorist attacks against the US than the governments the US replaced. The US Army just released its two volume report on W's Folly - completed in 2016, held back for political reasons. Apparently, the US learned nothing from Vietnam. Possibly less than nothing. But we can learn this: terrorism has had little to do with motivating US military assault, "regime change", etc. Terrorism is the new communism - an all purpose excuse for doing stuff that should not be done.
