re: Vance On Strikes In Yemen: ‘We are making a mistake…’

quote:

---

Beat me to it. But no sh*+. It is hard for me to imagine someone pleased with the brutal slaughter in this war but I guess “mUh dEad Russkies” makes it something to be celebrated.

---

But but… Muh Putin is Trumps bestie… and Russia Collusion is still real to me, dammit! So we must stop Putin! REEEE!

quote:

---

The Houthis attacked our navy 147 times.

---

And our navy dinndonuffin! Dey waz just mindin their own bizness, just about to go to college and be a good boy when they got in a gun fight in a bad neighborhood late at night.

quote:

---

Oh and this entire thing is likely fake. We're talking about the guy who made up the fake "suckers and losers" quote.

---

quote:

---

Always consult the MAGA flow chart

First, it didn’t happen

---

MAGA: That didn't happen.
Everyone else: How do you know?
MAGA: Trump said it didn't happen.

One esplanation. Military Industrial Complex.


Don't care who is fighting as long as they make the bombs, missiles, airplanes. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Booooom

I didn't side with anyone, Tate.

I certainly didn't side with folks like John Kerry, Andrew Warren, and "Gav."

quote:

---

I didn't side with anyone

---

Wrong

“Harbor police”?
We are trying to protect our vessels that are being fired upon.

quote:

---

As a neocon bootlicker

---

As a populist conspiracy-porn addict pussy who menstruates like a woman, you wouldn't know sound foreign policy if it bit you on the butt.

Now that we've traded mindless insults, do you have anything to actually rebut what I said, or is your, "Well you think you're a conservative, but REAL conservatives agree with me" argument-by-authority all you've got?

The truth is that conservatives have always disagreed over this. Not that that matters at all to whether being a pussy is a good idea, but that's the truth.

History has proven the conservatives who favored intervention correct, which is my argument.

Not, "I'm a TRUE conservative, so I win."

As a sidebar, you cite that more and more people—like you—want the US to sit back and wait for WWIII to happen, and you claim that is the (only possible) conservative position, but do you think more and more people are becoming conservative, or do you think more and more people are becoming populists?

If you say "conservative," then you really are delusional.

quote:

---

Find another route then.

---

So... you were stoned out of your gourd every day during world geography class.

quote:

---

As a populist conspiracy-porn addict pussy who menstruates like a woman, you wouldn't know sound foreign policy if it bit you on the butt.

---

Exactly the sort of response I expected from you.

You proudly flaunt your historical ignorance and wear it as a badge of honor while having the temerity to claim Trump’s supporters are members of a mindless cult.

In addition to being a clueless wonder, you are a hypocrite of the first order.



July 26, 1949: Senator Robert A. Taft on his vote opposing that the United States join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization:

Why did I vote against the Atlantic Pact? I wanted to vote for it — at least I wanted to vote to let Russia know that if she attacked western Europe, the United States would be in the war. In the Monroe Doctrine — and though we were a much less powerful nation — it prevented aggression against Central and South America. That was only a President’s message to Congress, and there were no treaty obligations, and no arms for other nations. But it was one of the most effective peace measures in the history of the world. I would favor a Monroe Doctrine for western Europe.

…

Under the Monroe Doctrine we could change our policy at any time. We could judge whether perhaps one of the countries had given cause for the attack. Only Congress could declare a war in pursuance of the doctrine. But the Atlantic Pact goes much further. It obligates us to go to war if at any time anyone makes an armed attack on any of the 12 nations.

…

Under the new pact the President can take us into war without Congress. But, above all the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace. A third world war would be the greatest tragedy the world has ever suffered. Even if we won the war, we this time would probably suffer tremendous destruction, our economic system would be crippled, and we would lose our liberties and free system just as the Second World War destroyed the free systems of Europe. It might easily destroy civilization on this earth.

…

There is another consideration. If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and. Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed.

…

How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?

Furthermore, can we afford this new project of foreign assistance? I think I am as much against Communist aggression as anyone, both at home and abroad; certainly more than a State Department which has let the Communists overrun all of China. But we can’t let them scare us into bankruptcy and the surrender of all liberty, or let them determine our foreign policies.

…

We are already spending $15,000,000,000 on our armed forces and have the most powerful Air Force in the world and the only atomic bomb. That, and our determination to go to war if Europe is attacked, ought to be sufficient to deter an attack by armed force.

…

We are spending $7,000,000,000 a year on economic aid to build up those countries to a condition of prosperity where communism cannot make internal progress. Shall we start another project whose cost is incalculable, at the very time when we have a deficit of 1,800,000,000 dollars and a prospective deficit of three to five billion? The one essential defense against communism is to keep this country financially and economically sound.