Drums of War

anon29537550 · June 21, 2019, 2:18pm

So are lots of things, like climate change for example. That does not really seem to matter to him.

LDoBe · June 21, 2019, 2:19pm

Reality is only true to him as long as he likes it.

ficuswhisperer · June 21, 2019, 6:34pm

JFC

anon48584343 · June 21, 2019, 6:39pm

What bothers me, other than starting another bullshit war, is why bother with small pointless pin prick attacks? Why not just go after Iran’s nuke sites once and for all? After all isn’t that what this is all about? (Other than the Armageddon Cult Fantasy.)

zathras · June 21, 2019, 6:53pm

Only one problem. What nuke sites?

anon48584343 · June 21, 2019, 6:55pm

Pick one:

ficuswhisperer · June 21, 2019, 8:03pm

Go after their nuke sites how? Bomb them? Somehow I don’t think that would go over very well with the international community.

Wanderfound · June 21, 2019, 9:33pm

Those are civilian power and research sites. Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

No.

It’s about inflicting punishment on a disobedient former vassal state, and maintaining US dominance over global energy supplies.

anon48584343 · June 21, 2019, 10:11pm

More of being Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s bitch me thinks.

Along with the oil biz.

(Russia will not let that oil source go.)

Wanderfound · June 21, 2019, 10:12pm

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are US client states. Both of them are propped up by the US military-industrial complex in order to maintain US dominance of the region.

Wanderfound · June 23, 2019, 7:30am

Wanderfound · June 24, 2019, 10:44pm

“Resisting” militarism by imposing a regressive tax on everyone who isn’t a member of the military caste.

alahmnat · June 24, 2019, 10:54pm

It’s not that a “war tax” is inherently a bad idea

Narrator: It was an inherently bad idea.

Wanderfound · June 25, 2019, 12:38am

One-third of the United States population would support a preemptive attack on North Korea, even in a nuclear scenario, knowing it would kill one million innocent people, according to a recent survey.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in collaboration with U.K.-based research firm YouGov, published a new study Monday detailing U.S. public opinion on military conflict with North Korea at a time when the pace of a historic peace process between the longtime rivals appeared to slow. Among the most “disturbing” results discovered was that “a large hawkish minority lurks within the U.S. public; over a third of respondents approve of a US preventive strike across the scenarios and appear insensitive to informational cues that most security experts would expect to reduce such levels of support.”

Little changed when the U.S. first-strike was switched from conventional to nuclear as “33 percent preferred.” In fact, “there is no significant change in the percentage who would prefer or approve of a U.S. nuclear strike when the number of estimated North Korean fatalities increases from 15,000 to 1.1 million, including 1 million civilians.”

Once again:

ficuswhisperer · June 25, 2019, 11:43pm

Wanderfound · June 26, 2019, 12:56am

Wanderfound · June 26, 2019, 2:04am

Wanderfound · June 29, 2019, 4:13am

FGD135 · July 1, 2019, 6:57am

Wanderfound · July 1, 2019, 10:59am

Topic		Replies	Views
The U.S. has launched 251 military interventions since 1991—and 469 since 1798 boing	13	659	October 8, 2022
Iran War: As U.S. sends 3,500 more troops to mideast, the vibe in Baghdad is bad boing	41	2152	January 8, 2020
Watch out! We are surrounded by 46 wars right now, according to Fox News boing	75	2246	October 24, 2021
Iran claims Saudi Arabia killed "3000+ Americans" and still gets to have nuclear weapons wrath	3	334	August 31, 2019
Trump orders missile strikes on Syria. Russia calls it 'aggression,' international law violation boing	204	7329	April 12, 2017

Related topics