Bolton: I wanna war, I wanna war, I wanna war with Iran!

[Stylan]

Fighting wars for capital. Damn, that'll really get american support.

I support telling Israel and Saudi arabia and turkey to deal with their own issues, bringing our soldiers home, telling europe to also deal with its own issues, and leaving an ultimatum that anyone who attacks us is screwed. Otherwise, we out.

What wars did we fight for capital? The real world isn't like your video games... nobody invades a country because they need more money. Iraq and Libya were dealt with because Saddam and Qaddafi were geopolitical enemies of the west. They held contrary values to us and supported international terrorism. They had to go.

Never thought I'd see someone who isn't in the CIA still defend the Iraq War.

We invaded Iraq for oil and Raytheon and all the rich people who own our government. Libya was a threat as they threatened the global hegemony of the West.

Also Gaddafi was a socialist.

[Ansarre]

Never thought I'd see someone who isn't in the CIA still defend the Iraq War.

As of 2015, a quarter of Britons (my place of residence) believe the Iraq War was right. I am proud to be part of that minority.

We invaded Iraq for oil

Oil Companies: please don't invade this is bad for us
Coalition: *Invades*
Post-War Iraq: *oil taken by Iran and ISIS*
Isolationists: haha yep look at that oil war

Also Gaddafi was a socialist.

Yep, never said otherwise.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Also Gaddafi was a socialist.

You would never catch Saudi Arabia redistributing the oil wealth through massive social security schemes.

Gaddafi was co-operating with the US and its allies towards the end. Providing black site prisons for torturing war on terror suspects. Gaddafi was more like Trump, a narcissicist who espoused whatever suited him best.

[Ansarre]

Just look at the stock:
March 1st, 2002: $8.45
July 3rd, 2014: $70.97

Hmmm...

Apple stock:

March 1st, 2002: $1.68
July 3rd, 2014: $94.03

Your point?

[Asle Leopolka]

I've been highly suspicious of Bolton's book for exactly this reason. He's such a bloodthirsty hawk and has a history of being extremely critical with anyone who is even slightly dovish. I've also asked for multiple sources to corroborate what was written and it's all come up empty.

[Diopolis]

5. End to diplomatic relations with Israel. Universal tariffs. Balanced budget amendment.

The latter two for sure, but ending diplomatic relations is unnecessary, and that goes for any country. Treat Israel like any other country, if they have the money they can buy US made weapons , but all other affairs are their own business, not America's.

Even talking to them is a form of subversion by zionist agents. We should leave middle easterners to their camel riding and genital mutilating instead of being lackeys for the Jewish state.

[Shofercia]

Here's a summary of what would've happened if Realists were running the show:

#1. No war in Iraq.
#2: No "Global War on Terror."
#3. Staying out of the nation-building business.
#4. A restrained strategy of "Offshore Balancing."
#5. No NATO expansion.
#6: No Balkan adventures.
#7. A normal relationship with Israel.
#8: A more sensible approach to nuclear weapons.
#9. No Libyan intervention.
#10. A growing focus on China.

There is much to admire in many of these positions, but others do not go far enough or are simply wrong. I can think of some suggestions to improve the list:

1. American withdrawal from all globalist institutions, preferably leading to their collapse without American support, including but not limited to - NATO, UN, WTO, IMF, etc
2. Closure of foreign bases and return of military forces from all continents, including the ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria
3. An end to both military and non-military interference in the internal and external affairs of countries such as Ukraine, Serbia, China and Venezuela
4. An end to aid to support arms purchases, however arms sales should be continued or expanded if possible

I'm not saying that those positions are perfect. I am saying that those positions provide the best set of options for US foreign policy. For instance, without Balkan Adventures and taking an extremely aggressive stance in the Middle East/Africa - what's wrong with NATO? If we bar those two factors, which the Realists would've barred, I'm not seeing an issue.

5. End to diplomatic relations with Israel. Universal tariffs. Balanced budget amendment.

So stupid. Israel is a key ally in the Middle East, tariffs are harmful to the economy for all parties, balanced budget is something to aim for but not necessary. I would argue deficit spending is entirely justified if its in done in such a way to order the economy and society for the common good. As a Catholic, would you not be open to that?

Tariffs can be vital to preserving key industries.

Never thought I'd see someone who isn't in the CIA still defend the Iraq War.

As of 2015, a quarter of Britons (my place of residence) believe the Iraq War was right. I am proud to be part of that minority.

We invaded Iraq for oil

Oil Companies: please don't invade this is bad for us
Coalition: *Invades*
Post-War Iraq: *oil taken by Iran and ISIS*
Isolationists: haha yep look at that oil war

Also Gaddafi was a socialist.

Yep, never said otherwise.

The Military Industrial Complex profiteers from warfare, and is about a lot more than oil. As I've previously stated:

Just look at the stock:
March 1st, 2002: $8.45
July 3rd, 2014: $70.97

Hmmm...

Just look at the stock:
March 1st, 2002: $8.45
July 3rd, 2014: $70.97

Hmmm...

Apple stock:

March 1st, 2002: $1.68
July 3rd, 2014: $94.03

Your point?

Apple thrived off of iPhone sales. What did Halliburton thrive off of? Warfare. Specifically the Iraq War.

[Ansarre]

Tariffs can be vital to preserving key industries.

Tariffs are always harmful. Always.

Apple thrived off of iPhone sales. What did Halliburton thrive off of? Warfare. Specifically the Iraq War.

Oil companies didn't want war with Iraq. It wasn't Saddam who prevented them from getting oil, it was the US sanctions. Don Deline literally chaired a lobbying group urging against sanctions.

“If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.” - Gary S. Becker

[Diopolis]

Tariffs can be vital to preserving key industries.

Tariffs are always harmful. Always.

Apple thrived off of iPhone sales. What did Halliburton thrive off of? Warfare. Specifically the Iraq War.

Oil companies didn't want war with Iraq. It wasn't Saddam who prevented them from getting oil, it was the US sanctions. Don Deline literally chaired a lobbying group urging against sanctions.

“If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.” - Gary S. Becker

Who said it was about access to oil?
The deep state pushed for war with Iraq after it met all of our conditions because if Saddam went through with selling oil for Euros instead of dollars, then it risked a domino effect ending with the dollar no longer being the world's reserve currency and then no more unlimited deficit spending for uncle Sam.

[Ansarre]

Tariffs are always harmful. Always.


Oil companies didn't want war with Iraq. It wasn't Saddam who prevented them from getting oil, it was the US sanctions. Don Deline literally chaired a lobbying group urging against sanctions.

“If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.” - Gary S. Becker

Who said it was about access to oil?
The deep state pushed for war with Iraq after it met all of our conditions because if Saddam went through with selling oil for Euros instead of dollars, then it risked a domino effect ending with the dollar no longer being the world's reserve currency and then no more unlimited deficit spending for uncle Sam.

No evidence of this, just wild claims.

[Panslavicland]

There is much to admire in many of these positions, but others do not go far enough or are simply wrong. I can think of some suggestions to improve the list:

1. American withdrawal from all globalist institutions, preferably leading to their collapse without American support, including but not limited to - NATO, UN, WTO, IMF, etc
2. Closure of foreign bases and return of military forces from all continents, including the ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria
3. An end to both military and non-military interference in the internal and external affairs of countries such as Ukraine, Serbia, China and Venezuela
4. An end to aid to support arms purchases, however arms sales should be continued or expanded if possible

I'm not saying that those positions are perfect. I am saying that those positions provide the best set of options for US foreign policy. For instance, without Balkan Adventures and taking an extremely aggressive stance in the Middle East/Africa - what's wrong with NATO? If we bar those two factors, which the Realists would've barred, I'm not seeing an issue.

Even ignoring that membership of NATO allows nations to take such an aggressive stance which even when not used remains as a threat to all neighbors of NATO countries that choose not to join, it remains an organisation that undermines the democracy and sovereignty of its own members. Members are expected to devote a specific proportion of their national budgets on defense spending, diverting spending away from other priorities that elected governments might wish to pursue, such as education healthcare. Now of course in practice many countries don't actually spend this amount, but that leads to another problem where taxpayers in some countries that do spend enough on defense are subsidizing people from other countries, again at the expense of their own education or healthcare spending. How does a factory worker in Missouri benefit from his taxes being spent to station US forces in Spain?

On top of that, article 5 is also fundamentally undemocratic. It obliges members to get involved in wars their citizens might not want anything to do with. Why should American lives be lost and money spent because Norway get attacked? Sure, if there's consensus within America that they should help out then go ahead, but article 5 doesn't oblige members to help defend other countries only if that consensus exists, it obliges them to help regardless of any support for involvement.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Bolton is shit, Trump is a shit president, preemptive strike on N korea would be dumb and, war with Iran is dumb.

[Shofercia]

Tariffs can be vital to preserving key industries.

Tariffs are always harmful. Always.

So you'd be ok with having the US small arms industry destroyed by foreign trade, and be dependent on China to produce guns for the US military?

Apple thrived off of iPhone sales. What did Halliburton thrive off of? Warfare. Specifically the Iraq War.

Oil companies didn't want war with Iraq. It wasn't Saddam who prevented them from getting oil, it was the US sanctions. Don Deline literally chaired a lobbying group urging against sanctions.

“If oil were the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s hard line on Iraq, avoiding war would be the most appropriate policy.” - Gary S. Becker

Some oil companies didn't want the war, while others did. And even if it wasn't oil companies, certain corporations massively profited off of the War in Iraq.

I'm not saying that those positions are perfect. I am saying that those positions provide the best set of options for US foreign policy. For instance, without Balkan Adventures and taking an extremely aggressive stance in the Middle East/Africa - what's wrong with NATO? If we bar those two factors, which the Realists would've barred, I'm not seeing an issue.

Even ignoring that membership of NATO allows nations to take such an aggressive stance which even when not used remains as a threat to all neighbors of NATO countries that choose not to join, it remains an organisation that undermines the democracy and sovereignty of its own members. Members are expected to devote a specific proportion of their national budgets on defense spending, diverting spending away from other priorities that elected governments might wish to pursue, such as education healthcare. Now of course in practice many countries don't actually spend this amount, but that leads to another problem where taxpayers in some countries that do spend enough on defense are subsidizing people from other countries, again at the expense of their own education or healthcare spending. How does a factory worker in Missouri benefit from his taxes being spent to station US forces in Spain?

On top of that, article 5 is also fundamentally undemocratic. It obliges members to get involved in wars their citizens might not want anything to do with. Why should American lives be lost and money spent because Norway get attacked? Sure, if there's consensus within America that they should help out then go ahead, but article 5 doesn't oblige members to help defend other countries only if that consensus exists, it obliges them to help regardless of any support for involvement.

Article Five should be defined as pure defense, rather than the "creative" definition of defense, and if it's limited to pure defense, it serves as yet another deterrent, just like MAD. The Balkan Adventures was a horrendous US foreign policy mistake, but even without NATO, Neocons/Neolibs would've seen it through. The Iraq War didn't invoke Article V, and yet quite a few countries joined the Coalition of the Billing. The US does have a lot of bases around the World, and the need for the bases should be reviewed. As for spending 2% on the military, it ain't that much.

[Shofercia]

Who said it was about access to oil?
The deep state pushed for war with Iraq after it met all of our conditions because if Saddam went through with selling oil for Euros instead of dollars, then it risked a domino effect ending with the dollar no longer being the world's reserve currency and then no more unlimited deficit spending for uncle Sam.

No evidence of this, just wild claims.

It's the job of US foreign policy planners to defend the dollar's hegemony. Of course the smart solution would've been to not invade Iraq after Saddam switched back to selling oil in dollars, rather than destroying the country.

[Panslavicland]

Even ignoring that membership of NATO allows nations to take such an aggressive stance which even when not used remains as a threat to all neighbors of NATO countries that choose not to join, it remains an organisation that undermines the democracy and sovereignty of its own members. Members are expected to devote a specific proportion of their national budgets on defense spending, diverting spending away from other priorities that elected governments might wish to pursue, such as education healthcare. Now of course in practice many countries don't actually spend this amount, but that leads to another problem where taxpayers in some countries that do spend enough on defense are subsidizing people from other countries, again at the expense of their own education or healthcare spending. How does a factory worker in Missouri benefit from his taxes being spent to station US forces in Spain?

On top of that, article 5 is also fundamentally undemocratic. It obliges members to get involved in wars their citizens might not want anything to do with. Why should American lives be lost and money spent because Norway get attacked? Sure, if there's consensus within America that they should help out then go ahead, but article 5 doesn't oblige members to help defend other countries only if that consensus exists, it obliges them to help regardless of any support for involvement.

Article Five should be defined as pure defense, rather than the "creative" definition of defense, and if it's limited to pure defense, it serves as yet another deterrent, just like MAD. The Balkan Adventures was a horrendous US foreign policy mistake, but even without NATO, Neocons/Neolibs would've seen it through. The Iraq War didn't invoke Article V, and yet quite a few countries joined the Coalition of the Billing. The US does have a lot of bases around the World, and the need for the bases should be reviewed. As for spending 2% on the military, it ain't that much.

Even if article 5 is purely defensive, it still obliges countries to become involved in wars that their citizens don't have a say in. Suppose a NATO member is attacked, in a way that makes it clear that NATO's response is purely defensive in nature - but only 10% of people in those other NATO countries actually want to help, and the rest don't. Why should those countries spend their own blood and treasure on people from another country when the people of their own country don't want to?

You say 2% isn't that much, but most NATO countries don't spend 2% on defense. But even if they all did, its not for you, or for me, or for some army officers in Belgium to say whether 2% is too much or not. It is still taking a decision - how to spend government money - that should be made by the people of those countries and those who represent them, not people in other countries.

[Cisairse]

Are people seriously defending the Cheney War in the year of our lord 2020

what.

[Ansarre]

Are people seriously defending the Cheney War in the year of our lord 2020

what.

Yes. Yes I am.

It's the job of US foreign policy planners to defend the dollar's hegemony. Of course the smart solution would've been to not invade Iraq after Saddam switched back to selling oil in dollars, rather than destroying the country.

So no evidence then, got it!

So you'd be ok with having the US small arms industry destroyed by foreign trade, and be dependent on China to produce guns for the US military?

I'd be perfectly okay with allowing China to export its shitty firearms to the United States and Europe. The US and European countries should then voluntarily choose not to purchase them. No tariffs needed.

Some oil companies didn't want the war, while others did. And even if it wasn't oil companies, certain corporations massively profited off of the War in Iraq.

Any evidence of oil companies agitating for war in Iraq?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

[Cisairse]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

The Iraq War was because junior forgot which Bush he was.

[Slavakino]

They have a distinct theology but they revere Ali ibn Abi Talib and are considered to be a denomination of Shia Islam.

Yet, they are still infidels

Not really. Hafez was sectarian as hell - eliminating nearly all Sunni influence from the military, police and intelligence agencies. He held back development in Syria and massacred tens of thousands of Sunni Muslim civilians during the Muslim Brotherhood's rebellion. When he began to liberalize the economy after plunging it into ruin, he allowed the bureaucracy to become incredibly corrupt and profit off of it. As a result the Alawite population became even more disproportionately wealthy while the rest of the population lived in terrible conditions. Bashar al-Assad didn't do anything before the civil war other than assassinating Rafic Hariri.

Yeah. Syria was turned into a secular nation, Islam influence everywhere will cause sharia law. Good think its secular. Syria has remained strong throughout the Assad regin as well as maintaining neutrality and giving to the people. Socialism at its finest.

By the looks of it you fell for Assadist propaganda on social media and stand by it because supporting a brutal dictator is super contrarian and edgy.

"Brutal". Nice labelling, truly shows you fell for neo-con propaganda. I support Assad because he is great for the people and a great Syrian nationalist. I'd prefer a dictatorship that's efficient and benevolent than a shitty corrupt democracy that doesn't work like the USA.

At this point there are next to no significant rebel groups who support democracy, they're all Salafis or supported by Turkey.

If you are to read you can easily see on Wikipedia or other sources they want "democracy".

Due to your policies, your shitty neocon Israeli supporting boomer ideology is only agreeing with the rebels because the "conservative" man on TV said so. Guarantee you think Russia is still an enemy to the USA. Your warmongering has no real ideals, only to monger war without reason. Ironic coming from me as I'm pro-war, but I support wars with a purpose such as scientific advancements, military experience, removing an expansionist threat for world domination (China) or a change of culture.

[Slavakino]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

The Iraq War was because junior forgot which Bush he was.

Iraq War gave some nice cultural shifts and technological advancements. Although the continuation of the war on terror became apart of Israels great interests

[Ansarre]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

Or maybe it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator who

Yet, they are still infidels

And? Sunni scholars have continually issued takfir against Shias of all kinds.

Yeah. Syria was turned into a secular nation, Islam influence everywhere will cause sharia law. Good think its secular. Syria has remained strong throughout the Assad regin as well as maintaining neutrality and giving to the people. Socialism at its finest.

Syria was secular before Assad? "Giving to the people" Assad, his father, and their bureaucrats are all corrupt as hell. So socialist!

"Brutal". Nice labelling, truly shows you fell for neo-con propaganda.

Yeah Assad using chemical weapons on civilians is neocon propaganda. It's so funny when your kind talk about propaganda but when you have reality shoved in your face you just call it fake news because it contradicts the lies you've been sold.

I support Assad because he is great for the people and a great Syrian nationalist. I'd prefer a dictatorship that's efficient and benevolent than a shitty corrupt democracy that doesn't work like the USA.

It's so easy for you to support Assad when you live a cushy western life. I know people who have fled Syria because of him. He's not a perfect leader, he's not remotely good. He's a brutal dictator who needs to be given the Saddam/Qaddafi treatment.

If you are to read you can easily see on Wikipedia or other sources they want "democracy".

You know what, it doesn't surprise me that your go-to is Wikipedia. I was guessing that, Al-Masdar, or Mimi al-Laham to be honest.

Due to your policies, your shitty neocon Israeli supporting boomer ideology is only agreeing with the rebels because the "conservative" man on TV said so.

This doesn't even make sense... lol. As a neoconservative, I don't support the rebels. In the early days of the uprising when it was liberal democrats? yes. Islamist groups? Not at all.

Guarantee you think Russia is still an enemy to the USA.

Yes, Russia is an enemy of the West.

Your warmongering has no real ideals, only to monger war without reason.

This is just a flat out lie, or you're totally ignorant of what neoconservatism stands for. Given the fact you're peddling Russophilic talking points... I can't say which one.

[Slavakino]

And? Sunni scholars have continually issued takfir against Shias of all kinds.

What I'm setting is that you support genocide or teachings against other religion.

Syria was secular before Assad? "Giving to the people" Assad, his father, and their bureaucrats are all corrupt as hell. So socialist!

I doubt they were secular under their previous gov run by Islam law. Any westerner will call an oligarchy or dictatorship that does good "corrupt"

Yeah Assad using chemical weapons on civilians is neocon propaganda. It's so funny when your kind talk about propaganda but when you have reality shoved in your face you just call it fake news because it contradicts the lies you've been sold.

The chemical weapon bullshit on civvies is bullshit. Same with this recent "barrel bomb" on civvies. Although their presence is real, they were used on rebels. A war crime yes but effective.

It's so easy for you to support Assad when you live a cushy western life. I know people who have fled Syria because of him. He's not a perfect leader, he's not remotely good. He's a brutal dictator who needs to be given the Saddam/Qaddafi treatment.

Yet I know many who left just because of war and say Assad was alright. Assad needs to stay. What you are doing is shilling for Israel trying to stop middle eastern leaders. If any middle eastern nation should get treatment. It should be Israel and Palestine and they should get a nuked. I'm not even western. I come from post-war Serbia

You know what, it doesn't surprise me that your go-to is Wikipedia. I was guessing that, Al-Masdar, or Mimi al-Laham to be honest.

What are you a high school teacher saying Wikipedia isn't reliable because its community-based?

This doesn't even make sense... lol. As a neoconservative, I don't support the rebels. In the early days of the uprising when it was liberal democrats? yes. Islamist groups? Not at all.

Ironically those democratic groups are islamists

Yes, Russia is an enemy of the West.

No. With trump in office, they are more of an ally and can be great use to ally with the USA. Shame neo-cons and neo-libs are stuck in the 60s and 80s

This is just a flat out lie, or you're totally ignorant of what neoconservatism stands for. Given the fact you're peddling Russophilic talking points... I can't say which one.

I agree with Putin, Trump, Assad and Kim Jong Un. Come at me

[Rusozak]

Are people seriously defending the Cheney War in the year of our lord 2020

what.

The Cheney war... I have to start using that.

[Cisairse]

Here’s the misconception, the Iraq war wasn’t for oil, it was to continue propelling the arms industry.

Or maybe it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator who

Literally nobody says that we should invade countries just for them being brutal dictators except John Bolton

Are you secretly John Bolton