While I was too young to vote during the W. Bush presidency, I still was far too blind to the fact that having a America as the world police has very little to do with most other right wing politics. The biggest part of the deception was the premise that "we have to get them there before they attack us here!"
Given all the warranted doubt that comes with the whole 9/11 narrative, we should be more prepared to question why we ever have had military intervention in so many countries.
The way I see it, the War on Terror and other operations were just another justification to keep the money flowing. After all, you cannot justify keeping much of the military around without any wars to fight.
Thus, we had the premise that we needed to preemptively put down any threats from around the world before they came to our doorstep. And any opposition to this premise was considered unpatriotic. And as we know, the American right prided themselves as patriotic.
But as our military has been overtaken by progressive politics and is enforcing policies worldwide that are the antithesis of American rightwing politics (e.g. homosexuality being legalized and feminist policies), it should be a far easier case for the American right to unpair themselves from supporting an interventionist doctrine.
For many on the right, this has become the case.
Though we still have supposed "conservatives" such as Bill Kristol who have exposed themselves as only being "conservative" in having a huge military that intervenes in other countries. In a way, Donald Trump exposed the farce of the neocons ever being conservative or right wing. Not because Trump was a great example of conservatism, but the fact that when he disrupted the status quo, the neocons exposed themselves as having no geniune right wing values.
The most important aspect of policies are those that affect you directly and the evaluation of how much it costs to enact those policies. When it comes to a strong military intervention, can we really make a right wing case for them benefitting us when we are using it to fight people who are not really much of a threat to us? Because all we have to show for most interventionist policies are a huge bill to pay.
And even worse, we are exporting some of the worst politics on the world and making the many countries genuinely hate us. Why should we care if some Middle East or African countries say no to feminism and homosexuality? They are not our countries, so we should not be telling them what to do.
I also doubt that countries like Japan and Taiwan geniunely embrace homosexual politics, but thanks to the US influence, they are allowing that shit to take place.
@houseoftolstoy
The answer is quite simple to that question: if africa and the middle east don't fully embrace feminism and faggotry, it gives normal smart people a country to escape communism and most important, their positive fertility rate means they will complete conquer the world in a few generations.
"without any wars to fight."
I believe that in 1984 book & or movies
The countries said they went to war against other countries but did not go to war against other countries
They found they could not defeat the other countries but still needed war to influence public behavior?
They sent explosive bombs & or explosive missiles into their own countries territory to convince people they were at war and in doing so better modify their behavior
"much of the intervention taking place during the W. Bush years and beyond were just a carryover for our military policy from the Cold War years. "
The wars in the middle east starting with George Bush Senior or earlier were because the United States sided with the USSR during world war 2 instead of Germany
& to support the zionist state of counterfeit Israel
counterfeit Israel wants to genocide people who are not Ashkenazi & Sephardic "Jews" who live in the middle east
"military policy from the Cold War years"
There was no cold war except a propaganda war
The United States worked together with USSR to fake the video footage of the inside of the space station because they were on the same team
The United States of America sided with USSR during world war 2 because the USA was covertly "communist" all along just like the USSR
It was important that the public not know that the USA is "communist" or they could have stopped "communism"
Every single war the United States was involved in after world war 2 can be linked to siding with USSR instead of Germany during WW2
Korean War because they split Korea with USSR while fighting Japan
Vietnam war because USSR existed since they did not side with Germany & they had to pretend fight "communist" influence on vietnam by USSR
Every war in the middle East because Israel must exist to prevent another holocaust
United States & England committed holocaust in Germany
United States & England committed holocaust in Germany by bombing food supply routes resulting in massive starvation of people in the concentration camps
More inmates starved to death than were Zyklon B gassed to death as indicated by the photographic evidence of the corpses looking like starving people
Siding with the Soviet Union in WW2 & creating & always siding with Israel to cover up the real primary holocaust committers
Is the root cause of every moden USA war
When I say it is the root cause of the war that is pretending countries have sides and fight each other and are not all managed from the top down by the same people who own banks & media
Who might not actually be Jewish
But who might put people labeled as Jews as puppets in positions of power so that no one cwn criticize them because of the holocaust
The root cause is Britain.
The USA never escaped the clutches of the British.
Carol Quiqley was right.
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-communism
@shortstories Even if we accept that the Cold War was all fake and gay, it still provides cover and justification for high military spending.
And assuming what you are saying is correct here, what do you make of the current situation with Russia in Ukraine with NATO supplying arms to Ukraine? Is Russia still covertly working with us, or is it a split from the previous cooperation?
@shortstories And back with the space race, it would actually make sense for the USSR not to call bullshit on the US "landing on the moon" if it was faked and the USSR was working hand in hand on the same team.
It makes me worry about those who are attempting to go to Mars. Because apparently we "lost" the technology to get back to the moon.
My guess is that countries are like competing teams run by the same manager
People really die in wars but they do not go to war for the purpose they claim
Ukraine & Russia might want to reduce not just the population of the other country but of their own country
They create wars so that people will be afraid that without a government there will be a war
They can use wars to justify tax
Tax forces people to be employed
They skim services & resources from employees
I have a theory that much of the intervention taking place during the W. Bush years and beyond were just a carryover for our military policy from the Cold War years. With the Cold War being over by the 90s, we still had quite a hefty military and less apparent justification for the spending and size of military.
So, given what we know about institutions, would we expect those working in the military and those who profit from having a large military to just allow the military to shrink?