The Left gave up on free speech, now they're giving up on FREEDOM

[Zirunel]

I’m sorry for not getting this, but when did they celebrate foreign wars?

Syria, four years of Russia!Russia!Russia! turning into the presently-unfolding Ukraine conflict, even to a lesser extent Afghanistan where a not-insignificant number of paid shills have advocated ongoing US military presence. (They call it "peacekeeping" or "human rights oversight" or some other euphemism.)

I think the other euphemism you're looking for is R2P. Once the Democrats (I can't call them the "left") latched onto that, they discovered -or rediscovered -  an appetite for foreign wars. But it takes some real revisionism or selective memory to pretend that the Democrats are unique in getting into stupid foreign wars. in addition to Afghanistan, which you mentioned, let's not forget Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (twice). Enthusiasm for stupid and often unsuccessful invasions of foreign countries isn't a left disease or a right disease, it isn't a Democrat disease or a Republican disease, it's an American disease. All parties are complicit, either in starting them or in continuing them.

Look at Iraq 2, surely the most egregious example in recent memory. Who in congress was in favour of that needless adventure? Just about everybody, either gung-ho loudly chanting U-S-A! U-S-A! or reluctantly but afraid of looking weak. Who opposed? Well, a lot of Democrats, but their opposition was confined to the vote. For ongoing, sincere opposition: what passed for the "far left" (Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich) and the Libertarian right (Ron Paul). Kucinich and Paul, unlikely allies, really found common ground in that but they were voices in the wilderness. They didn't have a lot of friends, left or right.

Nowadays, it does seem that scepticism about foreign adventures in America is more of a "right" thing (the right trying to forget how loudly they cheered such madness in the past), but even if it's a rather belated conversion, it's still welcome as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, how sincere is that conversion? I suspect a huge appetite for foreign wars is still lurking just beneath the surface, even on the right. Just waiting to be rediscovered. Check this out, from just the other day:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/candace-owens-called-for-the-us-to-invade-canada-to-stop-justin-trudeau-cracking-down-on-trucker-protests/

A call for R2P but from the right. Makes you wonder if anything has changed.

[oggsmash]

I’m sorry for not getting this, but when did they celebrate foreign wars?

Syria, four years of Russia!Russia!Russia! turning into the presently-unfolding Ukraine conflict, even to a lesser extent Afghanistan where a not-insignificant number of paid shills have advocated ongoing US military presence. (They call it "peacekeeping" or "human rights oversight" or some other euphemism.)

I think the euphemism you're looking for is R2P. Once the Democrats (I can't call them the "left") latched onto that, they discovered -or rediscovered -  an appetite for foreign wars. But it takes some real revisionism or selective memory to pretend that the Democrats are unique in getting into stupid foreign wars. Let's not forget Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (twice). Enthusiasm for stupid and often unsuccessful invasions of foreign countries isn't a left disease or a right disease, it isn't a Democrat disease or a Republican disease, it's an American disease. All parties are complicit, either in starting them or in continuing them.

Look at Iraq 2, surely the most egregious example in recent memory. Who in congress was in favour of that needless adventure? Just about everybody, either gung-ho loudly chanting U-S-A! U-S-A! or reluctantly but afraid of looking weak. Who opposed? What passed for the "far left" (Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich) and the Libertarian right (Ron Paul). Kucinich and Paul, unlikely allies, really found common ground in that but they were voices in the wilderness. They didn't have a lot of friends, left or right.

Nowadays, it does seem that scepticism about foreign adventures in America is more of a "right" thing (the right trying to forget how loudly they cheered such madness in the past), but even if that's a rather belated conversion, it's still welcome as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, how sincere is that conversion? I suspect a huge appetite for foreign wars is still lurking just beneath the surface, even on the right. Just waiting to be rediscovered. Check this out, from just the other day:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/candace-owens-called-for-the-us-to-invade-canada-to-stop-justin-trudeau-cracking-down-on-trucker-protests/

A call for R2P but from the right. Makes you wonder if anything has changed.

 
  You can say because the right cheered the madness in the past...I say its because the right tend to be the ones who actually pay alot of the cost of those wars (as in fighting in them) and have the advantage of hindsight later on down the road.

   There is a wave of populist thought, right and left, that is flat out finished with foreign adventures.  I has always been an American thing to dive into conflict after conflict.  I think enough of the public, especially enough that used to support such things (both in person and vocally) are done with them.   They say wisdom is knowledge with scars.  The people in America at this point should have enough of both to know to steer clear.  But I do not contradict that way too many in the country will still support some military action, mainly reason being very few in America ever have to feel the consequences of that action.   I think slowly there is a budding idea though, that we can just avoid foreign adventure.  I worry that since ALL media is for war, and most Americans think what the talking box tells them, the USA is going to get sucked into more bullshit. 

   The big wheels on capital hill make money from war, period.  So long as that is the case, there will ALWAYS be an appetite for war among political elites.  So long as they have the ability to push propaganda, I think the sickness will infect the nation for years yet.  Maybe some stateside consequences will cure that.   

[Pat]

I’m sorry for not getting this, but when did they celebrate foreign wars?

Syria, four years of Russia!Russia!Russia! turning into the presently-unfolding Ukraine conflict, even to a lesser extent Afghanistan where a not-insignificant number of paid shills have advocated ongoing US military presence. (They call it "peacekeeping" or "human rights oversight" or some other euphemism.)

I think the other euphemism you're looking for is R2P. Once the Democrats (I can't call them the "left") latched onto that, they discovered -or rediscovered -  an appetite for foreign wars. But it takes some real revisionism or selective memory to pretend that the Democrats are unique in getting into stupid foreign wars. in addition to Afghanistan, which you mentioned, let's not forget Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (twice). Enthusiasm for stupid and often unsuccessful invasions of foreign countries isn't a left disease or a right disease, it isn't a Democrat disease or a Republican disease, it's an American disease. All parties are complicit, either in starting them or in continuing them.

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

If it wasn't blindingly obvious before, the latest actions in Canada and elsewhere have made it eye-bubblingly obvious. The culture war is just a disguise for the real power struggle, between the establishment totalitarians who want a modern serfdom, and the scattered and disorganized masses who want at least a smidgen of privacy, or occasionally want to be able to do what they want without having to ask permission.

[Zirunel]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

[oggsmash]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

[Pat]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

I'm also opposed to exporting democracy via dollars. The leaders of an obscene number of authoritarian states have been able to hold on to power because of "humanitarian" aid, which invariably flows directly into the pockets of the ruling elite. The US should lead by example, not coercion or bribes.

[3catcircus]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

I'm waiting to see how badly Joe fucks up Ukraine/Russia and if it leads to *any* kind of impeachment attempt.  It's always informative watching who votes which way and tracing back to who the puppet master is for each congressperson. 

Frankly, Biden should have been impeached as a result of getting out of Afghan.  He had an agreed-to plan established by Trump and all he had to do was follow it; but no, he even managed to fuck that up.  A war of his own making is coming, because of kompromat on him and the smartest guy he knows in their dirty Ukrainian deals.

[oggsmash]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

I'm also opposed to exporting democracy via dollars. The leaders of an obscene number of authoritarian states have been able to hold on to power because of "humanitarian" aid, which invariably flows directly into the pockets of the ruling elite. The US should lead by example, not coercion or bribes.

  I think the USA should have a foreign aid budget of exactly zero.  I would say the same for the budget to maintain foreign bases, there should be no foreign bases.   If we are going to have "infrastructure" use those funds to allow the nation to function 100 percent independent of the world so far as things people need.   

[oggsmash]

It is not an American disease. Most Americans don't care about anything beyond their borders. It's an establishment disease.

I guess I can accept this to a point. Yes, an American establishment provides the impetus for all these foreign wars. But it's particularly an American establishment that has this habit. Not uniquely American, but not something you see so much in most other countries.

And it's an American electorate that time and time again enthusiastically jumps on board and rewards the establishment for that behaviour (perhaps precisely because they don't care about anything beyond their borders - the missiles are striking over "there" not over "here," so who cares).

So I'm sticking with "American Disease." But I do accept your point about an American establishment driving it all.

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

I'm waiting to see how badly Joe fucks up Ukraine/Russia and if it leads to *any* kind of impeachment attempt.  It's always informative watching who votes which way and tracing back to who the puppet master is for each congressperson. 

Frankly, Biden should have been impeached as a result of getting out of Afghan.  He had an agreed-to plan established by Trump and all he had to do was follow it; but no, he even managed to fuck that up.  A war of his own making is coming, because of kompromat on him and the smartest guy he knows in their dirty Ukrainian deals.

   I disagree about impeaching him.  I think anyone who watched any video of Afghan defense forces training knew that Afghanistan was going to fall in less than a month once the USA left.   I think it was the main reason no president wanted to be on the hook for leaving, because it can only end in a clusterfuck when the "defenders of democracy" you spent billions and billions to train seem to only want to get high and engage in Bacha Bazi, and are incapable of even doing push ups.   I DO hold Biden responsible as one of the shitbrains that voted to go into afghanistan though.  If anyone wants to impeach biden, seems a lot easier to just do so for him having serious cognitive decline.   Who ever was president on the withdrawal from afghanistan was going to have it collapse in record time.   "Freedom" is not something you can make people have, if they themselves are not willing to bleed, or die for it, they do not deserve it.  Simple as that.

[Spinachcat]

Listen up you traitors!

There is NOTHING more important than defending Ukraine's borders while millions of illegals pour through America's southern border.

Now let's eat some ice cream and poop our diapers.

For democracy.

[jhkim]

  It was easier for the establishment to push when they controlled the organs of propaganda (all media).  But these days when you can see what the people in other nations think, see other perspectives, get a lot more details about what a conflict or prospective conflict is really about, etc with the internet.   Now that the MSM can not simply manufacture consent for a war among the people with constant propaganda, I am not so certain it is going to be an American thing moving forward.   I am starting to feel a lot less lonely with my stance of not exporting democracy via bullets and bombs.

I am also glad for this change. I might not agree with you about some specifics like the Korean War, but I appreciate that more Americans are becoming opposed to our typical foreign interventions.

I'm not so sure this change is because media and propaganda have less power over the population, though. Outside of this specific issue, it seems to me that recently, people are more likely than ever to believe stories from their own political side. Because there are so many different versions of truth on the Internet, they are more used to rejecting stories that they don't want to believe. As long as an establishment can make a story viral, it will be believed.

In some cases, though, behavior is changing for the better. I hope this leads to less war-mongering by the U.S., which would be a good thing.

[Shasarak]

I think the USA should have a foreign aid budget of exactly zero

There is no such thing as "foreign aid"

There is only the price for other people to do things that you want them to do.

[GeekyBugle]

I think the USA should have a foreign aid budget of exactly zero

There is no such thing as "foreign aid"

There is only the price for other people to do things that you want them to do.

Howbout a budget to destroy the cartels? I know my government doesn't want to because sovereignty (they line their pockets).

[Pat]

I think the USA should have a foreign aid budget of exactly zero

There is no such thing as "foreign aid"

There is only the price for other people to do things that you want them to do.

Howbout a budget to destroy the cartels? I know my government doesn't want to because sovereignty (they line their pockets).

Until you fix your government, any aid would be an invasion.

[Pat]

The Canadian government finally revealed how they know the Freedom Convoy is full of Nazis:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10540325/Woke-Canadian-MP-claims-Freedom-Convoys-Honk-Honk-catchphrase-secret-code-HEIL-HITLER.html

Canadians, be careful when you're visiting a playground! The toddlers playing with little trucks and going "honk honk" are undercover agents of the Fuhrer!