Comment: Allright

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I Find this Ridiculuous (see in situ)


The other position is wrong because no Iraqi or Iranian has ever made any attempt to invade my homeland or harm one hair on my head nor any of my fellow American's heads. At least not until or unless we do things like invade them and overthrow their elected leaders so as to install someone that we want in their Government. They have never even made any attempt to head over here to my shores, other than to sell us some of their products, visit our lands for a sightseeing vactation and get to see what America and Americans are like, or to attend school here. Yet people like John Bolton seem to want to surround their lands with how many of our military bases? All while continually rattling a threatening sabre at them!

How about John Bolton discuss and display some peaceful principles? A principle such as, you don't go about spreading freedom and liberty and the ideas of freedom and liberty... at gunpoint? But instead lead by example by minding your own business, rather than fomenting hatred for us with our foreign policy. I don't think we'd like it if other countries said, "Hey, there's what we consider some bad guys over there in your country. We're sending over some drones strikes. We got, what to us, is one of the bad guys! Sorry we killed several innocent civilians with that strike. Here's some money, for your Government. Now that we paid off your Government, get ready for some more of those drone strikes!"

There really is such a thing as 'blowback'. I Googled "John Bolton on blowback". From the hits received it looks like all he does is dodge the issue of blowback.

No war should be made without Congress's authorization, which means the people are are authorizing it and are behind it's authorization. And it should only be paid for with sound, honest money. That way, people can know that it was not lobbied and paid for through corruption for a 'special interest'. By 'special interest' I mean an interest that was not in the real actual interest of the people. The people are supposed to be represented by their Government, not by special interests. Why doesn't John Bolton talk about that?

I believe there is an attempt to take over the freest, most prosperous nation on earth, and use it's wealth in order to install a One World Government. Hey, I could be wrong. I just believe that I recognize that whatever it is that is going on with our corrupted monney and financial/banking system, we have to look in the mirror, because we'll only have ourselves to blame if we lose our money and sovereignty to some 'special interest'.

Perhaps John Bolton doesn't even recognize that he's a figurehead for this. But I'd say that's because he refuse to face up to what war really is and refuses to look in the mirror. Perhaps he knows he wouldn't like what he sees?

The founding fathers didn't even believe in a standing army. The Second Amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. It doesn't say what kind of arms we ALL have the right to bear or not to bear. Why is there some attempt to hand this all over to some 'special interest' while there is an attempt to remove our right to bear arms, or some certain arms, by some of our elected officials?

"If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." -Ronald Reagan

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs. -OneTinSoldier