Blowback is Killing Us. Just Come Home.

[Ph64]

Still waiting for you to acknowledge the candidates you get are a product of demand by the electorate.. genius.

“Demand of the electorate” determines my candidates.

Yet somehow, I can vote on the candidates I’m given, and end wars.

And I’m a scumbag for not doing so.

Deep stuff, Quixote.

You get the candidates that appeal to the demands of the majority of the electorate. When the majority of the electorate aren't getting their fat asses loaded onto a C-5 to fight these wars, guess how many candidates actually plan to do a God damned thing about endless wars.. NONE.

If you had to go fight these wars whether you wanted to or not, I bet there would be candidates who run on a platform of really ending this shit, and they'd win, because only then would you actually give a shit.

I'm all for bringing back the Roman idea of the president, senators, etc, being on the battlefield leading the troops. I guarantee we wouldn't be in so many places, and the wars we did right would be short and decisive, not decades of occupation.

[TheReal_ND]

It's weird to hear people say that once you realize just how in your face rome was all over the world and how dogged they were about being out there crushing dissent. Though, obviously, our politicians would pale in martial thirst compared to romans, so this policy could work in decreasing the amount of wars we fight for jews but really it's just kind of sad to think about when you consider how alpha people used to be.

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Demand of the electorate” determines my candidates.

Yet somehow, I can vote on the candidates I’m given, and end wars.

And I’m a scumbag for not doing so.

Deep stuff, Quixote.

You get the candidates that appeal to the demands of the majority of the electorate. When the majority of the electorate aren't getting their fat asses loaded onto a C-5 to fight these wars, guess how many candidates actually plan to do a God damned thing about endless wars.. NONE.

If you had to go fight these wars whether you wanted to or not, I bet there would be candidates who run on a platform of really ending this shit, and they'd win, because only then would you actually give a shit.

I'm all for bringing back the Roman idea of the president, senators, etc, being on the battlefield leading the troops. I guarantee we wouldn't be in so many places, and the wars we did right would be short and decisive, not decades of occupation.

Lately, we can't even get one that's seen a battlefield.

[pineapplemike]

America’s hiddenwar in Syria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... -in-syria/
U.S. troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country and facing peril on many fronts



RAQQA, Syria — This ruined, fearful city was once the Islamic State’s capital, the showcase of its caliphate and a magnet for foreign fighters from around the globe.

Now it lies at the heart of the United States’ newest commitment to a Middle East war.

The commitment is small, a few thousand troops who were first sent to Syria three years ago to help the Syrian Kurds fight the Islamic State. President Trump indicated in March that the troops would be brought home once the battle is won, and the latest military push to eject the group from its final pocket of territory recently got underway.

In September, however, the administration switched course, saying the troops will stay in Syria pending an overall settlement to the Syrian war and with a new mission: to act as a bulwark against Iran’s expanding influence.

That decision puts U.S. troops in overall control, perhaps indefinitely, of an area comprising nearly a third of Syria, a vast expanse of mostly desert terrain roughly the size of Louisiana.

The Pentagon does not say how many troops are there. Officially, they number 503, but earlier this year an official let slip that the true number may be closer to 4,000. Most are Special Operations forces, and their footprint is light. Their vehicles and convoys rumble by from time to time along the empty desert roads, but it is rare to see U.S. soldiers in towns and cities.

The new mission raises new questions, about the role they will play and whether their presence will risk becoming a magnet for regional conflict and insurgency.

The area is surrounded by powers hostile both to the U.S. presence and the aspirations of the Kurds, who are governing the majority-Arab area in pursuit of a leftist ideology formulated by an imprisoned Turkish Kurdish leader. Signs that the Islamic State is starting to regroup and rumblings of discontent within the Arab community point to the threat of an insurgency.

Without the presence of U.S. troops, these dangers would almost certainly ignite a new war right away, said Ilham Ahmed, a senior official with the Self-
Administration of North and East Syria, as the self-styled government of the area is called.

[Speaker to Animals]

You kind of need at least observers in that Kurdish area if you want to preempt the Turks storming down there to exterminate them.

[clubgop]

At this point if we just come home, we better keep them from coming here. If there aren't any Americans in the ME to kill, they will want to come here and kill us. We come home and we need to lock the door behind us.

I don't think anyone is against this

There is a whole party dedicated to open borders.

[clubgop]

Still awaiting a list of candidates that i could have voted for to end our wars.....

Still waiting for you to acknowledge the candidates you get are a product of demand by the electorate.. genius.

“Demand of the electorate” determines my candidates.

Yet somehow, I can vote on the candidates I’m given, and end wars.

And I’m a scumbag for not doing so.

Deep stuff, Quixote.

There are these things called primaries, where you can vote for all kinds of crazy and maybe even get lucky.

[clubgop]

“Demand of the electorate” determines my candidates.

Yet somehow, I can vote on the candidates I’m given, and end wars.

And I’m a scumbag for not doing so.

Deep stuff, Quixote.

You get the candidates that appeal to the demands of the majority of the electorate. When the majority of the electorate aren't getting their fat asses loaded onto a C-5 to fight these wars, guess how many candidates actually plan to do a God damned thing about endless wars.. NONE.

If you had to go fight these wars whether you wanted to or not, I bet there would be candidates who run on a platform of really ending this shit, and they'd win, b then would you actually give a shit.

But I do give a shit. Now what vote should I cast to change it?

PRIMARIES. Google that shit.

[clubgop]

“Demand of the electorate” determines my candidates.

Yet somehow, I can vote on the candidates I’m given, and end wars.

And I’m a scumbag for not doing so.

Deep stuff, Quixote.

You get the candidates that appeal to the demands of the majority of the electorate. When the majority of the electorate aren't getting their fat asses loaded onto a C-5 to fight these wars, guess how many candidates actually plan to do a God damned thing about endless wars.. NONE.

If you had to go fight these wars whether you wanted to or not, I bet there would be candidates who run on a platform of really ending this shit, and they'd win, because only then would you actually give a shit.

I'm all for bringing back the Roman idea of the president, senators, etc, being on the battlefield leading the troops. I guarantee we wouldn't be in so many places, and the wars we did right would be short and decisive, not decades of occupation.

Because if I want to reduce militarization in a society I think to myself "what would the Romans do?"

[SuburbanFarmer]

At this point, let’s just count the places we’re NOT at war in the Middle East.