HomeArticleThe Forever War Is So Normalized That Opposing It Is “Isolationism”

The Forever War Is So Normalized That Opposing It Is “Isolationism”

After getting curb stomped on the debate stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim “Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?” Ryan posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman’s desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as “isolationism”.

“While making a point as to why America can’t cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard,” the statement reads. “When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making— about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11 attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn’t know who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard’s isolationism and her misguided beliefs on foreign policy. We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it’s ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people.”

Ryan’s campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said “When we weren’t in there, they started flying planes into our buildings.” At best, Ryan can argue that when he said “they” he had suddenly shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can’t legitimately claim that Gabbard “contorted” anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.

More importantly, Ryan’s campaign using the word “isolationism” to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn’t accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.

This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In his farewell address to the nation, war criminal George W Bush said the following:

“In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.”

A few months after Bush’s address, Antiwar‘s Rich Rubino wrote an article titled “Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism“, explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.

“Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world,” Rubino explained. “In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent.”

“A non-interventionist supports commercial relations,” Rubino contrasted. “In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations.”

“A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations,” wrote Rubino. “In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences.”

Calling an aversion to endless military violence “isolationism” is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people “agoraphobia”. Yet you’ll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus “war on terror” implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism; Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.

Another dishonest label you’ll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is “pacifism”. “Some wars are bad, but I’m not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary,” supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They’ll say this while defending Trump’s potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.

This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible circumstances; anyone who claims that they can’t imagine any possible scenario in which they’d support using some kind of coordinated violence either hasn’t imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.

Another common distortion you’ll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism “isn’t anti-war” because they don’t oppose all war under any and all circumstances. This tweet by The Intercept‘s Mehdi Hasan is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria’s sovereign right to defend itself with the help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan’s own country of Britain with extremist militias who’d been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.

The label “anti-war” can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today’s environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label “isolationist” comes nowhere close.

It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn’t have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the “end” of colonialism we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country’s will and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.

____________________

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • Tulsi Gabbard is still a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

  • This blog taking forever to load so I don’t come here often now. Maybe this awful verification process to comment is responsible. Not afraid of russian bots are you, or is captcha a double meaning?

  • Ryan’s point seems to have been ignored over his snit with Gabbard which Caitlin nicely explained. What Ryan was clearly trying to do was suggest that withdrawal from the Middle East was just too damned complicated (little lady?). We cannot just pull out without losing our grip on global power. Thus, we must remain in the Middle East until such an impossible-to-create plan is ratified by powerful others (men?).

    Of course, this BS has been used often to justify prolonged US occupations that protect US interests (i.e., multinational BIG Business/billionaires). If one skims through the history of US withdrawals from theaters of conflict – not a single one – even WW-1 and WW-2 hinged on a complex, logistic, strategic plan. In the end, we declare peace with honor, pack up and leave, usually, esp as in Vietnam) while getting hit in the ass by the door as we exit. The Middle East will be no different.

  • Caitlin, I’m begging you do something about this ludicrous ” verification” process to post a comment. It is so frustrating I’ve sometimes given up trying to prove I’m “not a robot”. And now ironically, I’ll need to go through this aforementioned ludicrous process to post this desperate plea.

  • I just give a mirthless laugh when idiots bloviate about “sitting down with murderous dictators”. The US and its lickspittle allies have a long and blood drenched history of overthrowing governments and installing blood drenched dictators. Replace( by execution) Patrice Lumumba with the cannibal Mobutu Sese Seko( Democratic Republic of Congo- Zaire) By the way, the Congo was a Belgian colony during which period millions of people were slaughtered, Belgium, and of course the regime change experts the CIA were complicit in the murder of Lumumba. Belgium for fuck sake, have a look at a map, it barely qualifies as a country. Haiti: Papa Doc Duvalier and his rightly dreaded Ton Tons Macout, Somoza in Nicaragua, heave out Mossedegh in Iran, install Reza Pahlavi with the feared Savak with their tithes chambers. When came the Islamic revolution in 1979, the deposed “Shah” cicled the world seeking asylum, even his sponsors-you guessed it, the US wouldn’t take him in. Speaking of blood drenched tyrants, France UK and USA still hobnob with the Saudi crown prince, he who ordered Kashogi cut up and dumped, supplying arms, targeting data and air refuelling so they can bomb schools, hospitals, school buses for fuck same in Yemen. I could go on but really give me a break with your shmoozing “blood drenched dictator” shit.

    • Sorry about the spelling boo boos.

      • I’ve got to ask, “Antipropo” seems familiar to me. Did you post at Iraq-war.ru ?

        • Don’t know or especially care whether your reply is an obscure sky dig or not mate-mate by the way is a term kiwis and Aussies use in many contexts, as some wag observed “Australia is the only country where someone might call you mate while beating you to death”; nor do I care. Having said that, I’ve never heard of that whatever it is, my correction doesn’t read “sorry about the spelling boo boos” and if it isn’t obvious from my post that I am ferociously anti war, almost all modern ones started but never finished by the US , I don’t know what to say. On another site -I think Off Guardian- a quote from Frankie Boyle resonates, to paraphrase: what’s worse than invading and killing lots of people in various countries is that 20 years later they come back and make a movie about how killing all those people made their soldiers sad”.

          • Hope all is well, how long do you have the Caitlin contract for? The spelling thing, the arguing with yourself. Complaining about the log-in, that is you backdoor in isn’t it? Then you screw around in the backroom? Man, don’t they teach you a new routine? Funny to see you here, after what 15 or 17-years? Take care.

            • What a twat you are, I didn’t even have a “smartphone or a computer nor access to either “15 or 17 years ago. Just as I responded to the other numpty with his childish ad hominem, why not respond to my post instead of this childish rubbish? Or do you too lack the necessary mental faculty?

        • A lot of diffuse unmedicated anger – churlish; not trollish. S/he makes it hard not to react. Let’s just keep trying to respond instead of react.

          • Well since that’s your second or is it third reaction instead of response why don’t you give it a lash? Perhaps you lack the intellectual wherewithal. Methinks it’s you who is the troll. It’s wryly amusing how common the derogatory epithet “troll” is applied to people who do not share same viewpoint.

  • “It all comes down to sovereignty.”

    Yes. Sovereignty is freedom, and that freedom must be constrained by our empathy which allows others to have the same freedoms we require. The empathy is key. The world is currently run by organized sociopaths, who have no empathy, so they only understand freedom for themselves, and slavery for everyone else. And therein lies the problem.

    So in reality, it all comes down to sociopaths.

    • Yes but read Oxford Prof Kevin Dutton’s “Wisdom of Psychopaths.” Psychopathological traits (some would call them “gifts”) overlap with “leadership” traits, i.e. courage, perseverance, focus, personal charisma, ability to persuade etc. These qualities can be described with either good and bad connotations but they are the same essence with less than 1% of the population possessing these traits. The flip side of this problem (but it’s also an inherent civilizational dynamic) is that “empathy” (i.e. a hot as opposed to “cool” amygdala which is present in over 2/3’s of the population) equates with susceptibility to emotional manipulation and less “cool” rationality, i.e. facts and logic based thinking abilities. Human civilization (as well as the animal kingdom) is founded on this Yin-Yang dynamic.

  • Exactly! It’s the aggression, stupid! Wars of aggression (not use of a country’s military purely for defense from aggression) are supposed to be the “supreme crime” (under Nuremberg Principles of international law) for a reason. In sync with the law of self defense for any individual. But what seems to have happened is Dershowitz’s advice that the “best defense is an offense” has become the rationale fueling US-NATO-Israel-Saudi “pre-emptive wars.” Instead of self-defense, the pre-emptive wars are based on “national interests” i.e. gaining more control over the world’s resources, controlling the world’s economy, and strategic territory, etc.

    • Also you’re right that it “all comes down to national sovereignty.” But you might be interested in reading Diana Johnstone’s and my take a few years ago on how the notion of “world federalism” (popular with liberal peaceniks) believes the opposite, that erasing of national sovereignty is the way to get world peace. Unfortunately having noticed how neocon warhawks often are prominently featured promoting “world federalism,” it’s also pretty obvious how this promotion of erasing nation-state sovereignty also fits nicely with goal of US seizing its “unipolar moment” as “Policeman of the World.” http://www.startribune.com/nationalism-is-not-the-only-threat-to-peace/331474891/

  • Maybe passing this along could help.
    Seems as good a try as any to stave off nuclear annihilation for a few minutes.

    Cheers,

    Eric

    Here is an open letter to President Trump.

    Please circulate widely, especially if you have a good Twitter account:

    Dear President Trump,

    I have 3 or 4 questions that I’d like to ask you. I will try to be brief:

    1. Now that you are President, are you getting laid more than you were before? For instance, when you were a candidate, or a TV star?

    2. I know that Sheldon Adelson has a lot of money, and you & your kids may agree with him about a couple of things, but is that really worth letting Bolton & Pompeo start shooting at Iran? Those guys are trying to start Armageddon, and everyone will blame you instead of them. Wouldn’t you rather be able to tell your golf buddies how you kept World War 3 contained to finance and the banks?

    3. And if you do let WWIII go kinetic, do you really believe that Israel will survive in any meaningful way, after Hezbollah and everybody else is done retaliating? How does that benefit the U.S.A. and the dollar?

    Thanks for your time!

  • why does Tulsi still serve on the Council on Foreign Relations, the headquarters of the neo-liberal NWO, the den of the neo-colonialist criminals?????

    and why is it so difficult to leave a danm comment on this site??????

  • As a retired U.S. Marine, I’m about as “anti-war” as a person can get. I enlisted because every Nation must have defense, and while much of what I was involved in wasn’t defense, “the walls must be manned, even if the government is criminal”. I’m grateful all my time at war was in my first years, and truly defensive, and I wasn’t allowed to participate in the wars I protested as a senior enlisted Marine.
    The one issue you state, I strongly disagree with, is the notion “the war on terror” was for the purpose of endless war. I would posit its primary purpose was to acclimate us, the American People, to a total surveillance state, the ever deeper, ever wider data mining, and mind control being worked into “best tech possible”, and thus pliable to the notion of “the long war”, the intent to complete the world government ideal which isn’t possible while we are confronted with “multi-polar advocates” we can’t dismiss out of hand.
    I agree with most of your perspective, you are definitively right on the false flag operations that are common fair now, for us, you are definitively right in your description of “ripping apart ‘who’s Tim, anyway’, and defending peace as by no means isolationism, but the primary issue we, the U.S., America, must address, to end our ways, is fiat currency, and our debt based system. Unless and until we restore real money, we will always be too far in debt to pay it off, and have to use alternative methods of getting what we want, meaning war.
    The world is coming to agreement against fiat currencies, slowly, because it’s hard to recover from a century and more of debt based economics, but we’ve managed to teach the lesson, so harshly, everyone knows only good money can work.
    When the world is on real money again, much of the ability to engage in “defense forward” will be stymied by the fact weapons and support systems will be costly in real terms, and “infrastructure of defense” that can’t be risked, putting it forward.
    We’ve, “as a Nation” forgotten what real assets are, and the risk we take putting them forward, because we’ve become accustomed to spending incalculable amounts, to most people, on systems beyond ordinary understanding, and then putting them all over the world, as if they were as secure as within our nation.
    We are learning, with a possible “steep learning curve ahead” what happens with endless provocation, spending all materiel costs on current weapons, depleted, and being confronted with new generation weapons, and defense systems, we are way behind on, for believing in our own “invincibility”.
    The U.S. deep state is just about done, unless we allow it continue in our forced demise, as the world moves forward, without us. We’ve definitely reached the point our “endless debt” will be broken, or collapse, with our choice determining which it will be. We are not in “the cat-bird seat”, even as we pontificate as if we were.
    Semper Fidelis,
    John McClain
    GySgt, USMC, ret.
    Vanceboro, NC, USA

    • Appreciate your service and your points of view. But 😉 “The world is coming to agreement against fiat currencies, slowly, because it’s hard to recover from a century and more of debt based economics, but we’ve managed to teach the lesson, so harshly, everyone knows only good money can work.”

      This is a hard point to get across to folks. The US dollar is a resource backed currency, before 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window the dollar was backed by gold at $35 an ounce, the dollar switched from gold backed to an oil backed currency. Currently other countries are required to collect $58 in order to purchase a barrel of crude. This is not a fiat currency, but script used to purchase oil. We have reached the end of this usefulness, if this system was ever useful. The Central Bank can no longer in this system expand M3 or the World’s Money Supply, not because oil is finite, but because the world is limited to how much oil can be consumed. The larger problem here is the world is breaking free from having to purchase crude with dollars and a larger share is being purchased using National currencies.

      There is nothing wrong with a fiat system of money as long as your currency cannot be counterfeited. Colonial Script is what the Colonies used and this system worked very well. I would suggest reading Franklin’s book on the value of paper money. Lincoln issued Greenbacks to finance the War Between the States, Lincoln did this because the Rothschild’s wanted to lend money at 20% interest to finance the war. The Bank of England’s counterfeiting the Greenback would lead to the creation of our Secret Service to prevent counterfeiting. Nixon even issues $2 Treasury Notes that were fiat.

      The Chinese are huge believers in fiat, their fiat system lasted longer than 1,000 years, longer than gold. England used a Talley Stick fiat system that lasted 800-years. Gresham’s law states that bad money will always drive out good money, best to start out with what many would consider to be bad money from the start.

      The Chinese utilize what is called a Chartalist form of money, this being the Government issues the money directly into the economy and it’s value is derived from it’s ability to tax. This has allowed the Chinese economy until recently to grow at double digits and today Russia pipes oil and natural gas to China and is paid in Renminbi and by the end of this year when the Siberian pipeline is completed the volume of crude will double and China will be paying for this in Renminbi. Nordstream pipeline to Germany is another problem for the US Petrol Dollar system, the natural gas is being paid for with Euro’s and Nordstream II will double this supply by the end of this year.

      Please consider having another look at money and what should be considered to be good money. Remember much of the world doesn’t have gold as a natural resource, so this type of system will only lead us back to today’s problems. Best to you my friend.

      • Hi Rod, Check-out “The Lost Science of Money” by Stephen Zarlenga. Also his http://www.monetary.org

        • Appreciate the link. Anything other than a true Chartalist form of money creation is still just another version of Private Central Banking. From your link, Professor Nicolaus Tideman his claim, “The case for money creation through tax-deferral loans.” an alternative to bank lending for creating money (nice work!) compared to creating money by having the government spend it into circulation (problematic — there is a better alternative). Nice of Nicolaus to come up with a method that keeps it in the bankster’s family and yet make NO mention of what problems there are having the government spend money into circulation, where counterfeiting is the ONLY problem. Sorry, I’m sticking with Chartalism, it is how the Chinese have been kicking our butts.

    • Hmmm

      The “war on terror” fits hand in glove with the totally Israeli centric US government we have today. Washington’s total support for anything and everything israel as the American people are forced to build a Jewish Supremacist super state out of the rubble created by “our” war on terror leaves no doubt 9-11 was a coup leaving israel in charge. And despite being clearly detrimental to America, the endless wars, casualties and trillions of wasted dollars continues unchecked and unchallenged. Considering the equally perfect timing of the so called war on terror, there is no doubt that treason is afoot, and has been for decades in the Pentagon, the Congress and the White House.

      Your assertion that the “war on terror” provides the perfect excuse to destroy our once unalienable rights is correct. However, its ultimate goal was to unsure that every time israeli agents kill our leaders (Kennedy Family, etc. )rig one of our elections, (every Presidential election since JFK {Carter slipped by})Many key State Elections, run another false flag, (starting in 1954, USS Liberty, the biggest of course being 9-11) or trick the American people into fighting another war (Vietnam, LBJ was their man, Iraq I & II and soon Iran etc.)that nothing gets in the way. You know, like the American people…

      When a tiny subset of a tiny minority control the entire Main Stream media Apparatus, the economy and money supply via the FED, Hollywood, Congress, The White House, Many key State Houses, Banks, half the Supreme Court etc. logic dictates that the Republic is being bled dry on the alter of zionism and a Jewish only empire.

      I find it truly ironic and sad that the ideals and way of life I thought we were protecting when I was in the service 4+ decades ago 11B have been replaced by the same kind of tyranny, oppression and evil we tried so hard to defend against.

    • Gunny, I could not agree with your more. The age-old suspension of democratic freedom called Marshal Law makes it so easy to suspend civil rights if the citizens can be frightened sufficiently. 9/11 offered people who like the idea of an Orwellian state the key that unlocks our civil rights to enable a Surveillance State.

      Before Bush, being in DC in fatigues would get you written up. After 9/11, the forever uniform nationally shifted to combat cammies. It’s sole purpose was to daily remind Congress and the country that we are at Foreverwar. It is so stupid to walk into a fellow-O-6’s Pentagon office and see him sitting there dressed to go camping. Of course, most US terrorism is domestic, as few Middle Eastern rebels even know how to obtain a passport much less book an international flight – assuming they had the money.

      Alas, we are already in a Surveillance State. When I click on POST, in a millisecond, a copy of this remark will be analyzed by an NSA server using algorithms to determine if I need increased surveillance – not as an enemy of the state, but a possible enemy of the Status Quo.

      • Your gratuitously insulting comments about “Middle East rebels” is exactly why your country and its military are so unconcerned about attacking, invading and occupying countries full of brown people. Have any of your soldiers been convicted for killing civilians in those countries? Let me help, the answer is “NO NOT ONE”. It was the black messiah (Obama) who changed the definition of “enemy combatant” to mean any military age male in the area of combat, with that age fixed at TWELVE YERAS OLD. What a convenient let off when dreaded are tossed blind into houses; presumably any females of military age just didn’t exist. Never mind shmoozing with “gunny”, think about this: your country has been at war for all but 30 some years since independence. No “western” country, always with the US at the front, can legitimately claim to have been in a defensive war since at least WW2. Even the cassis belli for entering that war-the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour- should be seen in context of a complete embargo on oil imports to Japan. If that doesn’t resonate, turn it around; a complete embargo on oil EXPORTS from Iran and Venezuela-even the current partial ones-are clearly acts of war.
        30 million of your fellow citizens do not have health care, infrastructure is crumbling while Russia built a bridge over the Kerch Strait in I think 18 months and China has built thousands of kilometres of high speed rail. Finally, I read somewhere recently that one third of the US military budget could end world hunger. No less a person than President Jimmy Carter recently stated: “the US is the most war-like country in history”.

        • Bloody spell check, should read “when grenades are tossed”

        • Why not turn your anger against people who support Forever War in the Middle East rather than those who oppose it. How is being too poor, backward, and inexperienced to be likely to visit terror upon the USA insulting? I did not disparage their ardent religious beliefs or assert that their rebellious actions are unjustified, or imply that they are unworthy of respect. My characterizations are accurate, if not flattering, and my purpose was to question US justification for military aggression and occupation in the region.

          • Antipropo is a divider on these types of forums. Usually would have another nick and argue with himself or herself, so I’m not sure about you.

  • Meeting with Assad is the exact opposite of isolationism. It is one thing to engage with the world, another to try to dominate it with military force.

  • I have to disagree with Caitlin on one issue. The longest running war in US history accomplishes one all-important goal: upholding the monopoly of the narco-dollar as the reserve currency in the opiate commodity market.

  • “forever war is the new normal”

    I’ve always thought the purpose of the Nobel committee in giving Obama the peace prize was to help normalize permanent aggressive imperial war as the new baseline for “peace”.

  • The Empire needs to establish many more ” re-education camps ” for you non-believes of Imperialism”. The Empire’s way or the highway to the camps for you. No one is allowed to think any way but the Empire Way. Mr. Pol Pot needs to be brought in to show how it is done.

  • AND NOW, LADIES & GENTLEMEN , , , , , ,
    former President Jimmy (who used to be a peacemaker) Carter
    drinks the Kool-Aid
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51832-c.htm

    • So it seems the pressure around him has finally changed his previous view:
      .

      .
      Carter was asked “Did the Russians purloin the election from Hillary?”
      .
      “I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes — or any votes,” Carter said. . . .
      .
      Carter and his wife, Roselyn, disagreed on the Russia question. In the interview, she “looked over archly [and said] ‘They obviously did’” purloin the election.
      .
      “Rosie and I have a difference of opinion on that,” Carter said.
      .
      Rosalynn then said, “The drip-drip-drip about Hillary.”
      .
      Which prompted Carter to note that during the primary, they didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. “We voted for Sanders.”
      .

      .
      Jimmy Carter tells NYT: ‘Voted Sanders’, ‘No evidence of Russian meddling’ and ‘Obama fell short of promises’ (Oct. 2017)
      https://theduran.com/jimmy-carter-tells-nyt-we-voted-sanders-no-evidence-of-russian-meddling-and-obama-fell-short-of-promises/

  • Read the responses to Ryan’s tweet. They’ve given it to him forcefully. It seems that the debate stage gave an opportunity for Tulsi to be widely heard, though very briefly. This after her sidelining by the MSM until this point. It has obviously introduced her to a whole lot of very impressed Americans. Let’s see if she gets any more air in future.

  • This is all so chutzpah it would be comical …

    Doesn’t Tim “Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?” Ryan realise that Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act bill to STOP funding and supporting Al Qaeda, who Tim (…?) Ryan “knows” is “responsible for the attacks on 9/11”?

    For example …

    http://theduran.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-is-calling-for-the-us-government-to-stop-funding-isis-and-al-qaeda/

    Can’t they remember their lines, for goodness’ sake? !

  • Ms. Gabbard has had MANY opportunities to turn her back on wars which she acknowledges were based on interventionism and regime-change. Not only did she not turn her back on them, she continues to play a ‘Major’ role to this day in a military organization which dealt a great deal of death upon the innocent civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan. One does not have to participate in war to know that war is wrong, yet Ms. Gabbard continues to support her and her ‘brothers and sisters at arms’ actions in these conflicts created by the U.S., the U.K. and Israel. This strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.

    • She is not attacking the role of a defensive force protecting our borders but is “militating” against our intervention into other countries under the auspices of “humanitarian” aid. She opposed our intervention in Libya, Syria, and Venezuela and admits that she was wrong about our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is for pulling out of Afghanistan and opposed war with Iran. So what war or intervention is she turning her back on and complicit with. Of course she did miss Vietnam and Korea.

      • why does she still serve on the Council on Foreign Relations, the headquarters of the global neo-liberal New World Order, aka the Deep State?

      • why does she still serve on the Council on Foreign Relations, the headquarters of the global neo-liberal New World Order, the den of the neo-colonialist criminals????

  • PNAC, the neo-con Project for the New American Century report, released Sept 2000 called for a perpetual war on terror, but lamented that it would require a NEW PEARL HARBOR. A year later they delivered the vaporization of the WTC.
    “Twin Towers Destroyed Using Clean Nukes” > JamesFetzer(.)org

  • If you use lies to start an war of aggression (as in our Iraq war or Libyan intervention) you probably don’t mind lying to your own people or smearing anyone who tries to curtail your bloodfest.

  • Another brilliant analysis. You should be more widely disseminnated.

leave a comment