I often wondered why, when they deflect opposition to their premise, you are unable to engage Progressives in debate. This week I found out how. Previously I have been able to engage people like John McDonald on issues but as soon as I try to explain why the issue is even relevant or controversial they, like good politicians deflect or change the subject.
Yesterday, I called the talk show that comes on after McDonald and when I said what I wanted to talk about, the ridiculous premise of the host, the screener hung up. The issue was Rex Tillerson's opinion that we may have to take preemptive military action against North Korea.
We are in Korea to protect the South Koreans. North Korea, like the Sunnis (ISIS) in Syria and the Shiites in Iran are not a threat to the United States and never will be. Wars are fought over land and to win you must annihilate the opposition that holds it and as far as we know, the Iranians and ISIS are not building any landing craft to attack us or anyone else and neither are the Russians or Chinese. We are the only ones and according to our politicians we want to live in peace and not make war on anyone and anytime we did, except for the native American Indians, we were never after the land we were fighting on.
As I have said on many occasions, the United States government must protect the military, in particular its supplier, and to do that it must create mayhem or perpetuate it somewhere else, otherwise several million workers will be out of a job and create a tremendous welfare burden on the remainder. There was never a threat from Russia, even after the end of WWII when they were at their weakest and we allowed Stalin to subjugate millions behind his Iron Curtain. Did Russian money rebuild any of the nations that were scorched during the war. No. I was in East Berlin in the mid-1970s and it was as if the war ended just the day before. Buildings still showed pock marks from rifle and artillery fire and people were escaping to the west as fast as they could get out.
We should have seen it and most people did when we ended the Korean War in a stalemate and we actually lost in Viet Nam and our military had the lowest reputation in history and the returning vets were actually demeaned. A new threat had to be created to rebuild the image, but primarily to protect the industry and its profits that help politicians get reelected. Why not the Soviet Union and start a cold war no one was ever going to fight but develop more weaponry that would never be used.
Being the richest country in the World it was inevitable that a leader in Russia would see what he was doing to his country and put a stop to it. Enter Gorbachov and couple it with Reagan who also saw its futility and the military industry had to conjure yet another demon to justify its existence.
The strategy now is not to win, because if you win, the wars will stop or abate to where they are fought not with aircraft carriers and submarines that cost billions of dollars but with small arms that is all the subjugated can afford. That will never end so long as a portion of the people are being oppressed by their own government. That however doesn't generate money for the builders of fighter planes and bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines.
Looking at it from a different perspective we have lost about 4000 dead and perhaps another 2000 wounded or suffering mental distress from having to fight in constant fear of death or injury because they have to play by a different set of rules than the opposition. In the course of these 10 years or so we have been engaged in the Middle East the nation has spent over $5 trillion dollars in sending these casualties into battle. At the same time we may have killed or wounded a like number but in the process created millions of refugees that the opposition is happy to be rid of. Even if the number is 20,000 on both sides, that is $250,000,000 each.
Every Mexican or Latino that enters this country illegally is actually a refugee from the land from which he came. Mexico should be pleased that we have gladly welcomed, now counting well over 20 million that its government could not support. Take a look at the population growth of Mexico over the past 50 years and then the previous 50 and you can estimate pretty closely where the projected increase went. And we want more of it. I say we because the government needs them and we are supposed to be the government.