RSS
Even Republican stalwarts like current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are starting to notice that something is shifting in the party. While McConnell announced recently that he would step down as Republican leader in the US Senate, in an interview last week he was adamant that he would continue to serve out his term in the Senate with one purpose in mind: “fighting back against the isolationist movement in my own party.”
He sounds worried.
What McConnell deems to be “isolationism” had for much of our history been called America’s traditional foreign policy. There have been major exceptions, but until the emergence of the neoconservatives starting in the late 1970s we largely adhered to the words of John Quincy Adams that America, “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
Why is that? The idea had always been that we would have more influence on freedom worldwide by concentrating on demonstrating the benefits of a free-market economy and protection of our Constitutional liberties at home. The US would lead the world by example rather than leading at the barrel of a gun.
When we strayed from that idea we got disasters like Vietnam.
But then in the 1980s, the neoconservatives seized control of the foreign policy of the Republican Party (and eventually much of the Democratic Party). They were determined to remake the world in their image through the use of force.
The military-industrial complex and all the special interests loved this takeover because it meant a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to them, the moneyed class. The American people at first accepted the hollow promises of the interventionist neocons, believing as they were told that it was the “patriotic” thing to do.
What we are now seeing – and it is evident in the polls as well as in speeches of our politicians – is a shift away from interventionism. The mood has changed, and more Americans are tired of being told they must sacrifice to save the rest of the world from itself.
Recently Col. Douglas Macgregor posted on Twitter, “We have lost $14 TRILLION over the last 20 year on dumb interventions in other countries. What good has it done?”
Many Republicans are asking that same question. What have we gotten for the first $100 billion to Ukraine? A victory for “freedom” like we were promised? No. We got rampaging inflation, decreasing standard of living, and demands for another $100 billion!
What did we get for the trillions we spent in the 20-year war in Afghanistan? Peace and democracy in the region? Hardly. As it’s often said, we spent 20 years in Afghanistan replacing the Taliban with the Taliban. All the money wasted, all the lives destroyed, all the blood spilled over 20 years and the interventionists achieved nothing. Worse than nothing.
Speaker Mike Johnson is facing serious pressure from House Republicans over his desire to keep spending on overseas intervention. That’s one reason the “national security supplemental” foreign aid bill has not been brought to the Floor. All of a sudden interventionism is a loser with more of the American people, and politicians are paying attention.
McConnell may think that he can stem the tide by preaching more intervention, but not even the Senate Republican leader can stop an idea whose time has come.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thank God Mitch the Bitch is retiring.
One reason the US is $34 trillion in debt: we have 750 military bases around the world. An incredible waste of money.
Meanwhile Mitch wants endless shekels for Bibi and Zelensky.
In March of 2023 Ron DeSantis placed the Ukraine war into proper perspective, framing it as a territorial dispute, a border war in Eastern Europe. Fellow Republicans, and The War Street Journal, intimidated him into walking it back. If DeSantis had remained firm, had articulated the insanity of the proxy war against Russia, the American people might well have supported his position. Now relations with Russia have deteriorated into mistrust, and reached the point where we are one miscalculation away from Armageddon.
Ron forgets about every other war of the 20th century that was also non-isolationist. But then again, even that old man MUST carry the jew water of the WWII lies.
But then . . . the neoconservatives seized control of the foreign policy of the Republican Party (and eventually much of the Democratic Party). They were determined to remake the world in their image through the use of force.
Not just foreign policy. This alien parasite has so completely taken control of America that even noticing is already a crime in several states.
There is nothing that brings Right and Left together better than the desire to get our financial fortunes the hell out of Ukraine.
Why can’t we?
Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker hinted last week that Speaker Johnson is now being blackmailed by the Neocon tribe. Tucker all but said that, as a lifelong resident of D.C., he knows what Johnson is trying to keep hidden. Isn’t that special?
And what of the billions upon billions handed over to Tel Aviv?
Will the day it ends ever arrive?
It’s way past the time to pull the plug on support for this 20th Century version of the Tower of Babel.
1 Samuel 8 says it all.
The US can not abandon its position in the world and have any reasonable expectation of being left alone. The world will not leave the US alone, no matter how much it may wish they were left alone.
Fortress America will not work.
From the Spanish-American War forward, the American ruling class has engaged in wars against the will of the people. The Vietnam War didn’t end because of protests, the ruling class felt it was no longer in their interest to fight it and removed Nixon to make sure it ended.
I’m pretty sure Americans didn’t want to fight the War Between the Staes, either. Draft riots in NY and the tyrant Lincoln imprisoning opponents to the war make a good argument for that. Who knows if the common people even wanted to fight the revolution? It would be pretty hard to fight your way through that propaganda. The Indian Wars, and the Mexican-American War to a lesser extent, were probably the only popular wars the US fought.
The “people” can make all the noise they want, the ruling class will make its decisions based on whether war is good for them. Not you.
Ron Paul still believes in this efficacy of a democratic system of governance when every shred of evidence points to the exact opposite. There exists virtually zero correlation between what the people want and what the government actually does. What Ron wrote here is a sad profession of faith more than it is a sober appraisal of reality.
If you go back to US support of Israel’s 1973 Yom Kippur War, after which the oil producing states quadrupled the price of oil in response, the cost to America’s economic well-being is in the many $trillions, not $billions. You could say that had the US not backed Israel’s wars of aggression and, relatedly, “Wall Street” not raped our economy, our infrastructure would be renewed; there’d be many tens of millions of high-paying jobs in high-tech and manufacturing plants, as there were before the GWOT; diseases cured; and, most importantly, civil comity across our land instead of white genocide through cancel culture, affirmative action, and DEI.
Even so, Congress is so beholden to Jewish money and intimidation that America’s military is being exhausted and economy sucked dry to support the Jewish wars in Gaza and the Ukraine. Congress at the same time, and in an act of collective capital treason, has turned over control of our borders to HIAS by appointing its director the head of border security and given HIAS hundreds of $millions to provide the logistical support to bring millions of American-hating, military age sleepers across our southern border. Once here, the government gives them an equivalent in benefits and cash that exceeds the income of many of our own hourly wage earners. These invaders are also ominously being offered advanced military training by the Pentagon, proving it’s no longer American in anything but name.
This has been going on a lot longer than since Vietnam. We might recall a little thing called the Spanish-American War. Our first overseas war came at the end of the decade which began with total victory in the Indian Wars. Homeland secured “from sea to shining sea,” we immediately cast our eyes on foreign conquest. Soon enough Washington had overthrown or subverted every republic in the western hemisphere, then turned its attention on the greatest prizes of all, Europe, and the long-hated mother country herself. We meddled in the first Great War and relentlessly provoked the Second, then sabotaged European efforts to work out a just peace among themselves in both conflicts. But finally the regime toppled England from her throne of dominance, just as a faction of the Founders had dreamed so long before.
We ought not forger that our national motto, adopted by the Congress in 1782 (even before independence was won), is “Novus Ordo Seclorum.” It comes from a line in Book IV of the Roman nationalist poet Virgil’s Eclogues, where it is part of the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that the young Rome is destined to rule the world.
Sure, maintain a position in the world, but as a peacemaking diplomatic force, not as a militaristic warmongering hegemon.
McConnell & Co.? Republicans OR Democrats: The difference? https://mile7bar.substack.com/p/us-republicans-or-democrats
Of course Speaker Johnson will cave–from whatever combo of blackmail, kickbacks, and “who lost Ukraine” nonsense is required.
Of course Congress will support war fever–from whatever combo of false flags, fear propaganda, profiteering, domino theorizing, end-times hoping, and shear madness requires, non-interventionism be damned.
People get so confused with who the likes of McConnell represent.
Here is a pie chart from 2010 that will leave you in no doubt…since then it has gotten worse for the majority of Americans.
U.S. imperialism didn’t begin in the 1970’s. It began with the Spanish American War (1898) based on a false flag. Then World Wars I and II against Germany (which had done nothing to us).
I’m surprised Ron doesn’t know this.
He also thinks McConnell and Johnson are under irresistible pressure to adopt a non-interventionist policy. No, they’re not. They work for their donor$ and/or blackmailers, not the people.
That won’t change unless and until SCOTUS bans bribing politicians (unlikely to happen). Or the American people take matters into their own hands — which is also unlikely to happen now that the Jew$ have successfully divided and conquered the United States.
There is no “American people” anymore. America is a Jew country by default, and the Jew$ get what they want until America is finally defeated or broken up.
Correct, and the Spanish war started an unfortunate tradition of the media deceiving Americans into foreign wars through lies that continues to the present day.
The Republicans suspect Biden of being influenced by the Chinese?? They need to investigate McConnell
This policy only works when applied against the more benign nations. Nations led by fanatics look at peace attempts as weakness and fight harder.
HUH? So the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with us?
It did. The attack on PH was 100% desired and provoked by FDR and a few of his good men. It was not a surprise to him at all as the positions of the Japanese fleet were trackable. It worked perfectly to give him just what he wanted; an excuse to declare war on Germany. That was a war that most Americans wanted nothing to do with prior to the “sneak” attack.
Huh? The future neocons weren’t even born when Wilson “determined to remake the world in his image through the use of force”.
It had more to do with us than we care to admit. The combination of our oil embargo imposed on one side and our “Lend-Lease” armament of the other meant our neutrality was shot to hell months before. We were a belligerent. We essentially gave them permission.
At least they avoided civilians. That part broke down on both sides eventually.
I said, “against Germany”. I said nothing about Japan.
We blockaded Japan and provoked it into attacking us instead of minding our own business.
So, we are being left alone now?
Idiotic rationale.
But then this is the price to pay for the great system of governance called Liberal Democracy.
Otherwise, the U.S. might end up ruled by a Putin like dictator who kept the oligarchy in check and raised the standard of living for the hoi polloi. Who would want to trade the American blessings of free press, transparent elections, transgenderism, feminism, foreign intervention for the sake of democracy, wokeism, wonder weapons by the MIC, an affordable healthcare system, DEI, ESG…for a better distribution of wealth.
I say only materialistic people do.
Last I checked, embargos were not acts of war, they were economic acts of disapproval.
I am sure you know, Germany and Japan were allied. If Hitler has used good sense and had a caveat in the treaty allowing Japan to join the Axis, stating Germany, and I suppose Italy were not to make war on the USA, it may have been different. That being said, war on Japan also subsumed war on Italy and Germany since they were allied.
Show me where we blockaded Japan prior to the attack on PH?
This has yet to be proven.
“Last I checked, embargoes were not acts of war.”
Legally, they’re not, but they are provocations that can lead to war. There is no guarantee that a country with the ability to respond militarily is going to sit by and be passive in response to an embargo. Japan desperately needed the oil, iron and steel that the U.S. was preventing it from getting. The U.S. not only embargoed Japan. It also froze all Japanese assets in the U.S.
“If Hitler had used good sense and had a caveat in the treaty allowing Japan to join the Axis stating that Japan, and I suppose Italy, were not to make war on the USA, it might have been different.”
The U.S. began providing military assistance to Britain on Sept. 2, 1940 (Destroyers for Bases Agreement). 25 days later, on September 27, the Axis agreement was signed in Berlin. As far as Germany was concerned, the U.S. was already at war with Germany when the Axis agreement was signed.
“Show me where we blockaded Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?”
Google is your friend.
“[Roosevelt provoking war with Japan in order to drag Americans into a war against Germany that they didn’t want] has yet to be proven.”
When you’re discerning people’s motives, start by looking at who benefits. And look at the history that led up to the events in question. Britain’s “balance of power” policy in Europe was to not have a rival that equaled it militarily or economically. Germany became that rival in 1870 when the various German-speaking principalities in central Europe united together to become one mighty nation. In response, Britain entered into a triple entente with France and Russia against Germany and waited for an excuse to go to war.
That excuse came when Germany’s ally Austria declared war on Russia’s ally Serbia. President Wilson promised the American people that no American boys would be sent to fight a war in faraway Europe. He broke that promise. Britain was only able to defeat Germany with American help. By becoming indebted to America, Britain made itself economically vulnerable. How could it afford to maintain its empire and remain the # 1 world power?
It stands to reason that Roosevelt saw WW II as an opportunity for America to finally displace Britain as the leading Western power. A second world war would bankrupt Britain but not the United States. The British empire would fall, and the American empire would rise.
Instead of being honest with the American people about his imperial ambitions, Roosevelt – like Wilson – lied and promised he would not allow American boys to go fight in a European war. So, the only way for him to make that happen was by provoking Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and then using the excuse that Japan was allied with Germany to justify going to war with Germany.
To me, this is the most credible interpretation of the events that took place. But, of course, you are free to disagree.
As always, Joker looks to make excuses for the depraved acts of the Anglo Zionist empire.
Yet again Joker, you demonstrate how clueless you are of real history.
The article below titled ‘How FDR Forced Japan to Attack Pearl Harbor While Lying About Trying to Avoid War’, will enlighten you greatly about how FDR purposely backed Japan into a corner:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/how-fdr-forced-japan-to-attack-pearl-harbor-while-lying-about-trying-to-avoid-war/
There you are.. LEGALLY, THEY ARE NOT
As a sovereign nation, the USA can decide who their trading partners are and who are not.
I bet even Tooth Dilettante would admit that. Or are you asserting Japan was to decide the trade policies of the USA at that time?
Your response is a non-sequitur.
Google is your friend too.
Your interpretation of the events surrounding WWI and WWII is just that, in interpretation. Plausible, not definitive.
As always, Tooth Dilettante provides, by his statements, he is the dictionary definition of an ignoramus.
“As a sovereign nation, the USA can decide who their trading partners are and who are not.”
This is not a question of who the US chooses to trade with. The US was using its financial and military might to prevent Japan from getting what it needed from other countries. It also froze all Japanese assets in the U.S.
“Your response is a non-sequitur.”
No, it isn’t. The U.S. was already making war on Germany by providing Britain with destroyers. There was no reason for Germany to want to stop Japan and Italy from getting Germany into a war with the U.S. Germany already was in a war with the U.S. — a war started by the U.S., not by Germany.
“Google is your friend too.”
Yes. And, unlike you, I use it. You came into this conversation with your strong opinions not even knowing that the US had embargoed Japan.
“Your interpretation of the events surrounding WW I and WW II is just that, an interpretation. Plausible, not definitive.”
I’m glad you find it plausible.
Yes it is.
Yes it is. Providing Britian with military equipment is not an act of war.
I use it too. I was unable to find where the USA blockaded Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
You suggested I used Google, but were unable to provide any link showing otherwise.
??? No, I came into this conversation knowing an embargo was not an act of war. You have admitted such. My problem with this whole discussion is the people here are trying to make an embargo into a blockade. It is not.
“Providing Britain with military equipment is not an act of war.”
So, if Russia provided Cuba with missiles to attack the U.S., that would not be an act of war against the U.S. by Russia? If your answer is that it would not be an act of war, then you are probably not worth discussing this with any further.
“My problem with this whole discussion is the people here trying to make an embargo into a blockade. It is not.”
It was in the case of the U.S. embargo against Japan:
“Japan could potentially obtain oil, cotton and some classes of metal from the Latin American countries. However, the United States was able to coordinate restrictions against Japan with the governments in the Western Hemisphere. Washington could also exercise political pressure on the South American governments if they were to resist US export controls. For instance, it was suggested in the US State Department that ‘refusal to sell to Japan might be made a part of Pan-American cooperation, and a condition favorable for securing United States loans.’ This pressure could be applied to the Brazilian cotton and the Peruvian tungsten and vanadium that Japan was interested in purchasing. Also, although surplus oil was available in Latin America, the United States could restrict the movement of tankers and pressure the companies that were operating oilfields, thereby denying Japan’s access to those oil sources.” — Dong Jung Kim, Compound Containment: A Reigning Power’s Military-Economic Countermeasures Against a Challenging Power, pp. 69-70, University of Michigan Press, 2022.
Freezing Japan’s U.S. assets also had a negative effect on its ability to trade with other countries. It’s harder to buy things when you have less money to pay for them.
According to historian Harry Elmar Barnes high ranking lawyers in the US government told the Roosevelt administration, that because of the afore mentioned destroyer deal the US was “morally and legally at war with Germany” by september 1940.
I have already come to believe there is no point in discussing this with you.
We made a deal with the USSR to remove our missiles from places in Europe in return for the Soviets removing theirs from Cuba. Whether it is an act of war or not is a moot point.
I do not wish to respond to the long-winded explanation by Dong Jung Kim. Convincing other countries to join in the embargo is still not an act of war. You have already admitted an embargo is not an act of war, now it looks like you are trying to backwater on that. Well, you cannot have it both ways.
Freezing assets is not an act of war either.
High ranking lawyers opinions are just that, high ranking lawyers opinions.
“I have already come to believe there is no point in discussing this with you.”
Then why do you continue?
“We made a deal with the USSR to remove our missiles from places in Europe in return for the Soviets removing theirs from Cuba.”
False. We removed our missiles from Turkey, not from Europe.
“Whether it was an act of war or not is a moot point.”
I was not talking about any deal we made with the Soviet Union. I’ll repeat my question and subsequent comment:
“So, if Russia provided Cuba with missiles to attack the U.S., that would not be an act of war against the U.S. by Russia? If your answer is that it would not be an act of war, then you are probably not discussing this with any further.”
“I do not wish to respond to the long-winded explanation by Dong Jung Kim.”
Of course you don’t, because it shows that you are wrong.
“Convincing other countries to join in the embargo is still not an act of war.”
“Convincing” — I wouldn’t call it that. You must be both naive and historically uninformed if you think that the Latin American countries didn’t know that if they failed to comply, the U.S. had the power to punish them and would not hesitate in doing so.
“You have already admitted that an embargo isn’t an act of war.”
The U.S. didn’t just embargo Japan by not trading with it. It forced other countries not to trade with it. That’s a blockade, and it is an act of war.
“Freezing assets is not an act of war either.”
It is as far as the country whose assets are frozen is concerned.
Their opinions make sense. Yours do not.
Because I thought there might be an outside chance you would listen to reason, I give up.
Continue to dispense propaganda while hiding behind a web interface.