I wonder if any of the so-called "liberals" pushing for a domestic "war on terror" akin to the "war on terror" the government waged against Al Qaeda realize that only a decade after launching the first "war" the government was funding and arming Al Qaeda in Syria (when it suited their purposes). Of course all of the police-state powers …
I wonder if any of the so-called "liberals" pushing for a domestic "war on terror" akin to the "war on terror" the government waged against Al Qaeda realize that only a decade after launching the first "war" the government was funding and arming Al Qaeda in Syria (when it suited their purposes). Of course all of the police-state powers assumed by the government to prosecute the "war on terror" were maintained (and expanded), even as our purported enemy in this war (Al Qaeda) was acting as one of our proxies. Its almost as if the hysteria created by these "wars" is all about seizing power and stifling freedom and has nothing at all to do with "terror".
Come on, man. The next thing you'll say is that the U.S. gave weapons to the Taliban way back in the eighties just to stick it to the nefarious Rooskies.
As if our elites would really do something so stupid...
But the war on the spread of Statism/Communism, albeit conducted wastefully and driven, to a dangerous level by the "warmachine" (Eisenhower warning, right?), WAS important to win (unlike the idiotic wars on behavior like drug-use, and non-state terrorism, which are totally driven and abused by police-State power and money interests).
The arming of the Taliban DID defeat the USSR there, and helped win the Cold War, and we only know how bad the Taliban were in light of their post-war behavior.
A very important point - I asked a liberal friend if they were aware of the actual genocide - actual insofar as Islamic State actually said they intended to genocide the Yazidi people and actually tried to carry it out - and they had never heard of the Yazidis and I'm guessing as I didn't push them would not have believed that the USA during the Obama presidency actually de-facto backed the Islamists in Syria.
I wonder if any of the so-called "liberals" pushing for a domestic "war on terror" akin to the "war on terror" the government waged against Al Qaeda realize that only a decade after launching the first "war" the government was funding and arming Al Qaeda in Syria (when it suited their purposes). Of course all of the police-state powers assumed by the government to prosecute the "war on terror" were maintained (and expanded), even as our purported enemy in this war (Al Qaeda) was acting as one of our proxies. Its almost as if the hysteria created by these "wars" is all about seizing power and stifling freedom and has nothing at all to do with "terror".
Come on, man. The next thing you'll say is that the U.S. gave weapons to the Taliban way back in the eighties just to stick it to the nefarious Rooskies.
As if our elites would really do something so stupid...
But the war on the spread of Statism/Communism, albeit conducted wastefully and driven, to a dangerous level by the "warmachine" (Eisenhower warning, right?), WAS important to win (unlike the idiotic wars on behavior like drug-use, and non-state terrorism, which are totally driven and abused by police-State power and money interests).
The arming of the Taliban DID defeat the USSR there, and helped win the Cold War, and we only know how bad the Taliban were in light of their post-war behavior.
A very important point - I asked a liberal friend if they were aware of the actual genocide - actual insofar as Islamic State actually said they intended to genocide the Yazidi people and actually tried to carry it out - and they had never heard of the Yazidis and I'm guessing as I didn't push them would not have believed that the USA during the Obama presidency actually de-facto backed the Islamists in Syria.
Remember, Joe said he would start the Game again. They've been playing mostly internationally, but the field has narrowed down to us.