US Politics on Sidechat | It’s not a war over nuclear proliferation. It’s not a war for human rights. It’s our military used as a private army for multinational corporations and foreign countries that stand to benefit

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

US Politics 27w

It’s not a war over nuclear proliferation. It’s not a war for human rights. It’s our military used as a private army for multinational corporations and foreign countries that stand to benefit

This post is unavailable

Anonymous 27w

1: Not a war. Congressionally authorized use of force by POTUS. Stupid but true. 2: what private army(define private army, PMC, mercenaries, other,)? 3: What multinational corp. (under what def. of multinational corp./how does the named entity fit the def.?)? 4: What foreign countries? Does it simultaneously undermine, alternatively simply not benefit the 🇺🇸, while benefiting these “foreign countries.”

Anonymous 27w

Here goes the liberal logic again Amazing that theyre not extinct yet honestly

Anonymous

#1 27w

I guess I can agree with 2 and 3. 1 is just splitting hairs. But 4 does not benefit us significantly. It benefits Israel, yet puts our Gulf allies in a difficult position

Anonymous

#3 27w

Be real you never wanted a new war in the Middle East til your favorite politician started one 💀 and now you can’t look bad

Anonymous

#2 26w

It is also interesting to consider the multiple countries around the world who primarily source fossil fuels from the Gulf, yet have not responded with their capable navies to Trump‘s call of opening the straits.

Anonymous

#1 26w

Why should they spend money and risk lives because of something they never supported and turned out to actually harm them significantly?

Anonymous

#1 26w

All of that talk about leaving NATO and saying the US is the only contributor is real funny now

Anonymous

#2 26w

Because the majority of gas and other fossil fuels they get are from the golf followed by the United States. Our exports can sustain them and there was a real possibility. We would close export to keep prices at home low. There is, however, a trade-off between how it looks politically and what strategically benefits them (i.e. oil).

Anonymous

#2 26w

If it is it is a terrible joke! I always thought we should restart SEATO. Just spending NATO is about the opposite.

Anonymous

#1 26w

And all of those exports were fine until we decided to run back the old “they have WMDs” playbook

Anonymous

#2 26w

When, what are you talking about? You still haven’t addressed my point about the Allies indeed having a pony in this Gulf race.

Anonymous

#3 26w

Na, they’re extinct or on their way. I’ve only ever met Commies under the age of 50.

Anonymous

#1 26w

That’s like saying your friend who keeps gambling his money away should keep having his friends cover his tab when he goes out. Yeah, you and your friends want to have him around and have fun, but you can’t keep rescuing him and sacrificing your own finances

Anonymous

#2 26w

Thx for the response, I do agree it’s a waste of resources, but not in the way of wasting Am’s natural resources, just copious amounts of $. It IS Wasting everyone else’s. Other than refusing to pay the tab again, Idk what the solution here is.