John I think you have a rather simplistic view towards war in general, if it was only a matter of "saying no to war", no wars would ever be fought. Your posts come off as a crackpot nutjob lacking the ability to look objectively at the situation.
You asked if the Libyan war, like all other wars, was about rich folks making money. It's not. It's really about the opposite - it's about people who are tired of being screwed over by the richest man in their country and fighting back. Other rich people/nations/corporations may find ways to capitalize on it, but that's…
Same here. I understand Vietnam as a proxy war against spreading Communism, but it wasn't a moral war and it sure wasn't conducted well. Nearly everything since then has been about controlling natural resources :(
Not sure what to say to that, you don't see how to label the guy that got us into WW1 as a pro-war president? Ever hear of lying? Politicians do it all the damn time. He said one thing, did another, and I'm supposed to cheer? He was given a second term because he was vocal about keeping america out of the war... then he…
Yeah honestly, I'm quite liberal when it comes to wars, and I haven't really agreed on the US's stance on war since Korea, but to make the argument that we should have just stayed put and let well enough alone during ww2 is insane.
If this is your position, then I take it you're assigning the pro-war, pro-middle finger attitude to Woodrow Wilson? The man who said that "There is such a thing as nation being too proud to fight", and who campaigned for re-election with the slogan "He kept us out of war"? Wilson personally offered to mediate an end to…