Can someone please explain to me what Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet are saying they want in this piece at The Hill?
Americans will make their presidential choice on Tuesday. Whoever wins then will be faced with their own choice. Will they resolve to win World War III and give a fireside chat of their own ahead of Thanksgiving? Or will they too continue blindly sleepwalking through this ever-growing global conflagration?
Increased defense budgets? More direct U. S. involvement in the various hotspots around the world? Let alone how those can be accomplished?
I won’t even delve into the peculiarly skewed worldview that is their premise. Suffice it to say that France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Russia, China, etc. all have national interests and will pursue them regardless of what we do. So does the U. S. although I’m not entirely sure how what we’ve been doing for the last 30 years relate to those.
In that period we’ve been directly involved in three major wars only one of which resulted in even marginal success and a dozen more minor ones both directly and indirectly. Will greater involvement result in greater success?
There is always someone pushing to increase military spending and wanting more war.
Steve
Yes Steve, but they don’t go to the frontlines, and this is not just the US, they have decided us, we die, they get rich!!