07 Apr 17
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/
America loves to go to war. It always strengthens the incumbent "leader." The Democrats are at least as jingoistic and war crazy - Clinton actually more so. American media in the land of free speech are no better than a state owned propaganda machine. You can say what you like [hate speech is just fine] as long as you say what the leadership / the mob likes. Nobody in Washington cares about legality - the president is omnipotent in these matters. [Recall that in 2011, Obama went to war in Libya not just without Congressional approval, but even after Congress rejected such authorization.] Even those who described Trump as a fascist and a bumbling incompetent are content to endorse his kneejerk decision to attack a new enemy. The conspiracy theory implications of Trump's confrontation with Russia are wild. The fraudulent claim that this attack is motivated by humanitarianism flies in the face of Trump's overtly anti-humanitarian stance on international affairs - the day the USA shows a commitment to the countless refugees its own bombs are creating will be a cold day in hell.
07 Apr 17
Originally posted by finneganThis is the ugly side of the Progressive era.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/
America loves to go to war. It always strengthens the incumbent "leader." The Democrats are at least as jingoistic and war crazy - Clinton actually more so. American media in the land of free speech are no better than a state owned pr ...[text shortened]... ws a commitment to the countless refugees its own bombs are creating will be a cold day in hell.
Once government had been centralized by Progs and given a federal income tax with a bank to print whatever money they like, they then created a world conquering army that has gone nonstop since.
07 Apr 17
Originally posted by whodeySuch ridiculous claims have already been debunked several times on this board. The actual creation of a large "peacetime" military was done post-WWII, long after the creation of the income tax and the lack of a central bank did not stop either the United States or the CSA from creating large armies.
This is the ugly side of the Progressive era.
Once government had been centralized by Progs and given a federal income tax with a bank to print whatever money they like, they then created a world conquering army that has gone nonstop since.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121318
Originally posted by whodeyWhat kind of convoluted BS excuse is this? Trump is using this atrocity to deflect from his first 100 days being a cluster-f*** of the highest order. If I hear him say "tiny babies" one more time I will have to throw something at the TV.
I think it's always best to enter a no win quagmire without legitimacy, that way when you exit it you loose nothing, because if you did have credibility entering it you would have none once you left as so many have done before.
07 Apr 17
Originally posted by no1marauderBlah, blah, blah.
Such ridiculous claims have already been debunked several times on this board. The actual creation of a large "peacetime" military was done post-WWII, long after the creation of the income tax and the lack of a central bank did not stop either the United States or the CSA from creating large armies.
The fact is that the US became very warlike after the Prog era. Now they don't even declare war anymore.
Deal with it.
Originally posted by divegeesterHillary praised Trump for his attack on Syria. She wanted to do the same, only, she wanted to add a no fly zone.
What kind of convoluted BS excuse is this? Trump is using this atrocity to deflect from his first 100 days being a cluster-f*** of the highest order. If I hear him say "tiny babies" one more time I will have to throw something at the TV.
I reckon you would have been just fine with that.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey did immigrate to America with the intention of oppressing the American Indians and taking their land, that is true. Yay for immigration!
Quite the opposite; the US engaged in almost constant war, invariably for territorial gain, prior to the Progressive Era.
What I'm talking about, however, is producing a world conquering army, which the US did not have until Wilson entered World War 1.
Originally posted by whodeyEither you are playing stupid or not playing. I said nothing about immigration; I was referring to the history of the United States as a nation from 1787 on to what you call the "Progressive Era" which you seem to date to 1913. If you are unfamiliar with the amount of warfare waged by our nation in that period, I suggest you read a history book.
They did immigrate to America with the intention of oppressing the American Indians and taking their land, that is true. Yay for immigration!
What I'm talking about, however, is producing a world conquering army, which the US did not have until Wilson entered World War 1.
I missed that we conquered the world in WWI.
What size army did the US have from 1919-1939? I've already given you the answer in other threads where you made the same baseless link you are making here but it was hardly one that was "world conquering" size.
08 Apr 17
Originally posted by no1marauderThe US took on the most powerful army in the world and won.
Either you are playing stupid or not playing. I said nothing about immigration; I was referring to the history of the United States as a nation from 1787 on to what you call the "Progressive Era" which you seem to date to 1913. If you are unfamiliar with the amount of warfare waged by our nation in that period, I suggest you read a history book.
I mis ...[text shortened]... e same baseless link you are making here but it was hardly one that was "world conquering" size.
Don't know what you are babbling on about.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Soviet Union took on the most powerful army* in the world and won...with help from the US and other Western countries.
The US took on the most powerful army in the world and won.
Don't know what you are babbling on about.
*Well on paper the French Army was stronger than the German Army