In a recent speech in Chicago, President Trump announced that the US isn’t just staying in Syria to control the oil, but also that “we’re keeping the oil,” saying he’s always said the US would keep the oil taken in eastern Syria, and claiming it to be worth $45 million per month.
That’s America’s war in Syria now. After twice suggesting the troops are coming home, Trump has now restructured the war in an open-ended way around looting oil from Syria in a non-specific way that officials are keen not to elaborate on.
US military goals in Syria have never been all that well defined, part of its endless nature. Now that the goals are defined, and are just oil, the US war risks getting a lot more complicated, even more morally dubious, and potentially even longer than before.
Russia was deeply critical of taking the oil as “state banditry,” and US legal experts concede there really is no legal basis for the US to just take Syria’s oil. The practical matters are likely to be just as dicey.
While the US can keep hundreds of US troops, tanks, etc., in eastern Syria indefinitely, costly as that is, there is still no sign President Trump has gotten any interest from any US oil companies in going to Syria and extracting oil whose ownership is in dispute.
Getting into the oil business with a military occupation underpinning it would mean the operation will last as long as the oil does. The logistics of setting up the oil extraction will be complicated, and lawsuits trying to stop them are a given.
Trump sees himself as a modern-day conquistador. He will seize & hold anything of value around the world.
lance, Trump does have his head far up his azz most of the time,,but he is our POTUS and must be allowed to finish his term and run again if he desires. The problem is the demoncrats suck far worse!! LOL!! Tulsi is our best chance now, but that will never be allowed to happen.
“The problem is the demoncrats suck far worse!”
No, they suck just as much but hardly “far worse”.
Really ? If GOP voted like dems, we would not be aiding and abetting murder in Yemen today. Parties are not “the same”, or, even close.
Your Yemen story is good one . If Trump was as anti war as he claims to be this should have been a easy place to pull back his war support . Even congress would have been in favor of this pull back .
I was talking about the democrats running for President. At least the ones they are going to allow to have a chance at the nomination. None, in my opinion, will be anti-war and I fear the worse that it will be Biden.
I understand. I get the 3rd party vote, but, now, after decades of GOP unanimity for war, I am back to lesser of evils. A dem president could not go against party on a Yemen type vote, not even Biden. And yes, I am familiar with Biden. GOP has to go.
Tulsi could join with Trump in my new Bull moose party Both TULSI and Trumps signatures would be required on all executive orders Vice president Pence could break all ties . Tulsi and Trump pretty much have the same antiwar agenda But Trump is not often a very nice man . He brags and boasts about himself and really turns a lot of people against him . None the less Trumps supporters will not forsake him because Trump usually has the right answers and generally tries to take the country in the right direction . Which is the exact opposite direction the established democrat and republican parties try to take us . Trump could bring over half of republican voters to his new Bull moose party even if he has been impeached . And if Tulsi could bring a few democrats along with her liberalism . We could crush the globalists that have had more and more control of both political parties for some time .
“Tulsi and Trump pretty much have the same antiwar agenda”
The difference being Tulsi doesn’t intersperse her “anti-war agenda” with threats of obliteration on multiple countries or talk of killing 10 million in a week. And I haven’t heard her talk about sanctioning countries to the teeth to make them capitulate to our every demand. Plus I think she’d rather stick forks in her eyes than team up with the draft dodging con man.
The very best thing that could happened would be Trump is impeached for not being a globalist . And Run for president on a Bull moose ticket . With real American democrats joining republicans supporting this Party . Tulsi Gabbard would have to break her pledge not to run on another democrat party ticket Of course listening to all the candidates running for president in the present democratic party . They are not really talking democracy they are talking about hardcore total control of everything . which is usually known as slavery . These guys can’t be liberals because there is no way for them to leave much liberty left for the majority of the working people .
The last time Trump threatened to pull US troops out of Syria he got howls of indignation from both sides of the aisle in Congress and in the MSM. Now, he says he’s staying in Syria and taking the oil… nothing. What does that tell you about both major parties and our illustrious Fourth Estate? I’m sure Trump is paying attention to the silence.
Thomas, you are soooo correct! 🙂 I would back Tulsi for our next POTUS,,but she does not stand a chance, she speaks too much truth to the Deep State and Neo Con ‘chicken hawks’, as well as the MIC and all their DC GHOULS. Sooner or later the USA will come to it’s senses, and by then it will be too late. Rotten MOFU’s in DC need to be cleaned out, one way or the other. 🙁
Thomas, our imperial POTUS can change policy and deployments in moments. The criticism of his moves are not universally a pro war stance, quite the opposite. The deal maker has failed every attempt at diplomacy, everywhere. By moving troops around, because he can, he found that he can stay in the spotlight, and criticize anybody that questions his moves, from any angle.
Let’s assume it is hotels, and not war. The trump has bankrupted the pos hotel he built in northern Syria, yet, has received loans to build a new pos hotel in eastern Syria, and steal a gas station as well. How or where do you even start the criticism ? It’s almost too stunning in its corrupt incompetence to begin, or end.
My comment was less a criticism of Trump as it is of the Congress and the MSM who are silent about this clearly illegal seizure of Syrian oil. Why does it take the Russians to point this out? Why will it take the Russians to eventually shut it down, just like they finally destroyed hundreds of oil tankers a while back that were smuggling oil to Turkey for ISIS while the USA did nothing about it?
Congress is a ponderous check on the executive. The CIC can move troops in, out, give them bizarro missions before Congress puts its shoes on. The war on terror authorization constantly bites congress in the ass, leaving them frozen. Notice, for all trumps drivel about “ending pointless wars”, he never mentions ending the authorization that makes them possible…….never. Even today he is using it to bomb Libya.
The only check Congress has ever really delivered to Executive war is a blank one…
… Well, if that’s the angle.
Like, angry activist War Machine Inc. shareholders foisted Trump into the CEO’s office in 2016. He’s just the CEO, so like poor Muilenburg at Boeing, he can’t just override the rest of the swamp board psychopaths who made the War Machine/Boeing Max the Titanic of our era.
Newsweek reports that the U.S. stands to make $30 million a year on smuggled Syrian oil.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-claims-u-s-smuggle-30-million-oil-syria-month-donald-trump-criminal-plan-1469243
Trump is making a teeny tiny dent in the overall $US 5.9 trillion loss the Long War project is so far.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Crawford_Costs%20of%20War%20Estimates%20Through%20FY2019%20.pdf
Also, the main buyers of Syrian oil will be the Assad government, essentially bankrolled by the Russians and Iranians.. The Syrians have been buying oil from the terrorists all along, but the U.S. is going to more directly make Russia and Iran pay for U.S. occupation.
So, Trump is the only one who can come up with ‘wins’ in this disaster. Yeah, he just rearranged the deck chairs om the Titanic… but the arrangement is art.
The Long War project is corrupt incompetence. Trump’s just passing through.
No, congress delivered a real law to end US involvement in the Yemen murder. The trump vetoed it. There is no evidence in law, or, on the ground that trump intends to end the murder. He is a war criminal, just like his predecessors. You people on this site carry fetid water for trump the murderer. I am embarrassed by the fact that you do, in the name of Raimondo, and every true antiwar person that visits this site. The trump rubbled Syrian cities, murdering who knows how many, refugeeing millions, yet, you drone on, despite the facts on the ground. He doesn’t deserve to be impeached, or unreelected, he deserves to be hung.
Are you kidding? Congress knew Trump would have to veto the law on Constitutional grounds.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/in-vetoing-congresss-yemen-resolution-trump-stood-up-to-a-lawbreaking-legislature/
Recall the standing resolution to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Bipartisan support but not worded so as to be a Constitutional violation, with provision for waiver.
Nor was attempt was made to try and override the Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority, either. The Dem antiwar motion was as clever an intellectual contrivance as anything coming from partisan faux progressives.
Real antiwar is not playing games, but calling this kind of cynical gamesmanship out as it happens. The bill was not valid within the division of power, veto was inevitable from any competent President.
Override was not in the arithmetic. Your link is as hilarious as a serial killer. Love how the author turns US involvement into saving civilian lives. Does the US military have any experience with that ?
I guess you see benefit in a warlord executive, I prefer shared power, so does the constitution.
How hilarious is this link:
“Why Bernie’s Yemen Bill Won’t Actually End US Role in War” – Whitney Webb, Mint Press news, Dec. 3, 2018.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/bernie-yemen-bill/252480/
How did this Dem farce play with better informed members of the genuine progressive grassroots? Not very well.
“Bernie Sanders Yemen Bill Has MAJOR Loophole, Won’t Stop Yemen War. We’re Being Played!” – Jamarl Thomas, The Progressive Soapbox, Youtube, Dec. 4, 2018.
https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=amaiKzW2o58
Webb and Thomas correctly point out, the bill had a huge loophole written into it; the U.S. could still go after Al Qaida in Yemen, essentially in line with in-play stretched interpretations of the AUMF.
Any Yemen actions could be excused by Al Qaida, except Trump could be bothered to have to prove Al Qaida whenever the Dems felt like harassing him. Which is all the time except for when he tomahawks Syria.
There’s even a clause that says “Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations or cooperation with Israel.”
Webb and Thomas also missed that specific military actions cannot be called for by Congress; the Legislative can’t tell the Executive how to conduct a war, only declare wars and fund them. If Congress and Senate did bother to veto Trump’s veto, he could go to the Supreme Court and have the bill overturned.
Trump was forced to choose between his base, which wants to get KSA for 9/11, and U.S. geopolitical reliance on Saudi Arabia. Especially with regards to supporting U.S. dollar hegemony by selling oil in $U.S., U.S. interests in the Middle East versus China and Russia, and the carefully cultivated personal relationship with KSA’s autocratic rulers U.S. Presidents usually cultivate that Obama had lost.
Trump also did try and mediate a peace in the aftermath, but Saudi Arabia wants this war as does a strong faction of the U.S. Deep State.
The War Party had this covered; the Dems wasted hope and faith in their anti war sincerity with one carefully crafted sentence. For nothing. The only logical choice was to veto.
So who wrote the bigger farce; National Review’s Robert F. Turner, whose legal arguments went right over your head, or Bernie Sanders’ legal team, who made sure S.J.Res.7 wasn’t ever going to work?
https://www.legiscan.com/US/text/SJR54/2017
I am well aware of the ambiguities in the war on terror authorization. So ? trump signs the Yemen bill and ends military participation, what is congress going to do, impeach him ? Lol. Same goes for Syria, or Libya. Your legal hand wringing denies the reality. We fight the wars because trump and the gop want to fight the wars.
…. fighting wars started by both Republicans and Democrats. Trump’s wars were Obamas, and so far,Trump has started no hot wars of his own.
Perhaps the Dems should let Trump pull out of a war or make a peace before starting new impeachment games; then we could really see what Trump would do if he wasn’t conveniently under impeachment threat by the War Party.
You were well aware of the ambiguities, yet let them stand as proof of Democrat sincerity? You can’t see past your own partisanship. The Dems and Reps are one War Party; were they divided, if one stood down from war, peace would have a far better chance of overcoming opposition.
Had Trump signed that bill… nothing changes except he now has Saudi Arabia and its lobby against his Presidency as well, doing everything they can alongside the Dems to bring down the Trump adminstration.
The intellectual dishonesty of the Dem’s Yemen joint resolution is worse than Paul Ryan’s underhanded removal of Barbara Lee’s AUMF recension from a DoD funding bill.
At least Ryan didn’t make a big deal of trying to fool anyone and no-one expected better of the man or his party. Nor did the Democrats oppose Ryan’s actions.
All that nice legalese, and then “he started it” fingerprinting. Nothing prevents trump from signing the bill and getting out. Nothing. Write a billion words, won’t change that fact.
Politicians do not “inherit” problems. They volunteer to address them.
Trump could right now, order troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan without the bill and everyone know that; just like everyone knows or should know why its not that simple.
Your reality is like the fictional Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars. His only important scene was to introduce the motion, in the Old Republic Senate, voting Senator Palpatine emergency powers to ultimately overthrow the Republic.
Jar Jar Gabbard’s bill, like Sander’s before it, is an inadequate bill for ending war. If this bill or something like it was ever willingly signed into law by a sitting President, Congress would have precedent to back seat drive wars. President and Congress could take turns washing each other’s hands of responsibility in spilled blood and treasure.
Inciting ignorance of political realities preventing peace and the Dem and RINO role in contributing to said political realities obstructing peace, is disingenuous service to the anti war cause.
“everyone knows, or should know why it’s not that simple”…ok, color me stupid, explain to me why a CIC cannot order troops out of a particular combat zone…
Because the CIC is also a politician with political effects to consider, something you clearly understand but pretend not to.
History is politics trumping the obvious straight lines between ends.
Again, its no coincidence Trump faces renewed impeachment allegations just when settling the Afghan and Syrian wars seemed possible. Nor is it a surprise Trump will prioritize saving his presidency over concluding endings that can be immediately undone by a successor.
North Syria is a done deal. U.S. troops are unlikely to return. Deir Ezzor are negotiable, as is al Tanf – but only for a while. The long momentum is against the Long War, with or without Trump.
And America will survive.
Ya, again, politics…..why did a US bomb massacre a dozen or more Afghan fig pickers….politics. You seem to be so adamant at defending trump, I’ll see if you can try it from the other side.
Obama’s Afghan surge failed, as anyone could predict it would. By 2015 he had reduced deployment to “stated” 8500. He reduced air strikes and ended the ground combat mission….on paper. By the end of 2015, he stated his desire to end the war on terror authorization. By the beginning of 2016, the gop congress guaranteed the lamest of lame duck future. Why didn’t he end it ? Politics ? No, he lacked the will, and courage to do it, just like trump now.
There are few willing to defend Trump and objective centrism, and unfortunately realpolitik is everything . Obama was never going to be impeached, the Republicans never figured out how and what they did come up with was incredibly stupid.
Being a lame duck should have meant, there’s nothing to be gained in not withdrawing from the wars from a legislative perspective.
Except, Obama spent most of his Presidency trying to validate the wars and turning on them is in a sense, would be an attack on his own legacy. Not crossing his own Red Line was his singular anti war accomplishment, and while not starting WW IV over Syria was significant, he did draw that red line.
Being a lame duck in no way impedes giving withdrawal orders to wars with War Party bipartisan support. However, doing so would certainly scorch a lucrative post-election career as an overly-paid motivational speaker and still-young celebrity-at-large.
An aged Trump will either retire to living large, a successful past POTUS who survived impeachment attempts and maybe ended some unpopular (at least to some) wars. Or, he can be made an example of by vindictive War Machine elites as an impeached, disgraced failed politician who will never be forgiven for being even a momentary political disruption.
However, there is also the Presidential curse; if one believes in such things, the odds of him surviving a 2020 re-election term are slim. Only Reagan and Bush II beat the curse, Reagan using astrology and avoiding a federal hospital when he was shot, and Bush II, either by dumb luck or not being the elected President but judicially appointed.
Whether or not Trump is driven by courage and will or just plain doesn’t understand and is thrilled by the excitement of Presidential wheeling and dealing, is not clear.
However, the math is simple. The War Party consists of faux Progressive Dems and false Republican RINOS; ideally one of them has to go. Of the two, the Dems are the more successful liars, so why not them. Trump initiated peace negotiations and attempted withdrawals. However, if he continues the wars, there’s no real change in outcome except, if Trump nonetheless remains President, one half of the War Party, preferably the more dangerous intellectually deceitful half, the Dems, drain from the swamp.
It should be no secret, the GOP or at least the Conservative base, very much appeared slated to go extinct in an antifa-led purge. However, Trump and the Conservative base were not and are not going to purge society of real Progressives.
Ya, again, politics…..why did a US bomb massacre a dozen or more Afghan fig pickers….politics. You seem to be so adamant at defending trump, I’ll see if you can try it from the other side.
Obama’s Afghan surge failed, as anyone could predict it would. By 2015 he had reduced deployment to “stated” 8500. He reduced air strikes and ended the ground combat mission….on paper. By the end of 2015, he stated his desire to end the war on terror authorization. By the beginning of 2016, the gop congress guaranteed the lamest of lame duck future. Why didn’t he end it ? Politics ? No, he lacked the will, and courage to do it, just like trump now.
“Again, its no coincidence Trump faces renewed impeachment allegations just when settling the Afghan and Syrian wars seemed possible”
The president in office at any given time, being commander in chief of the US armed forces, could have ended those wars with a withdrawal order at any point after they started.
QED, any impeachment allegations would necessarily come at a time when ending those wars not just seemed, but actually was, possible.
Seems pretty QED that impeachment is all about Trump winning an election with a mandate to end wars then trying to end said wars.
The original version with all these plot elements was much more convoluted. A sitting President (Johnson/Democrats) spied on an incoming rival from another party (Nixon/Republicans). An opposition party (Nixon/Republicans) scuttled a sitting President’s (Johnson/Democrats) peace talks. A President with a peace plan escalates the existing conflict to get better terms (Nixon), closes a partial deal on peace (Vietnam ended in 1975; Nixon’s peace deal was in 1973). A sitting President (Nixon) then gets threatened with impeachment for trying to sabotage the rival party (Watergate), much disliked by the political establishment for actually trying to end a war…
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-heinous-crime-behind-watergate/
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ending-vietnam
This is much easier to follow in real time. Withdrawal from north Syria was completed quickly and efficiently with Turkey, Russia/Syria and the U.S. moving more or less effortlessly into their new military positions with minimal conflict.
With Idlib still hot, Russia/Syria would be pressed to fully secure Deir Ezzor and al Tanf as well. The Deep State proxy war brain trust still hasn’t figured out how to resuscitate a ‘salafist principality’ but were handed a clearer mission; squat the oil. Those parties are far from done.
Concurrently Trump smoothly pivoted from geopolitical focus to face the new Ukrainegate impeachment proceedings, offering Deir Ezzor as appeasement to his RINOs, as well as North Korea, southwest Syria, and Afghanistan. These are straightforward and understandable offerings, unlike the gold-to-petrodollar deal of 1973 whose benefits weren’t immediately recognizable.
That may be enough to save Trump’s bacon in the Senate; the Dems will milk the trial for a while. The RINOs have time to turn on Trump yet, if they sense they can survive the wrath of the Republican base and not end up being the drained half of the swamp come 2020.
War with Iran over seized tankers, missile attacks on tankers, and Saudi infrastructure have been denied. Trade war with China has not yet crashed the U.S. economy.
Quod erat demonstrandum; what was politically possible at the time, appears to have been done. The President is not a dictator; he answers also to the American political class and their popular supporters who support U.S. imperialism (under whatever guise).
And yet in the column section you can’t stop defending him and claiming that his speech in which he blatantly advocated looting the resources of another country was some sort of antiwar landmark! Guys, I love this site and I still love the news section but the people who publish the editorials have to wake up! Trump is the opposite of “antiwar”. He stopped a bill that would have ended U.S. involvement in the Yemen Massacre, he has increased military spending at a rate faster than Obama, he has increased production of nuclear weapons (and wanted them increased tenfold), and he has increased tensions with Iran to a dangerous level, and pulled out of the nuclear deal despite the fact that it was working! Despite this, all the columns on this site seem to be focused on defending Trump from “the deep state” and on bashing Kurds just because Trump decided to fuck them over.
Once again, I love the news section of the site but you guys have to wake up! Trump is not “antiwar” by any measure.
Some people can hold several thoughts in their heads at the same time:
1) Trump is a know-nothing blowhard and is pretty far from antiwar, and
2) he is still the elected president and in charge of foreign policy, not the deep state minions and footsoldiers of empire preening on the MSM and hamstringing him (usually on the rare occasions he IS being antiwar) on policy.
Ok, I’ll bite..how, exactly, does the “deep state” “hamstring him(usually on the rare occasion he IS being antiwar) on policy ?
Example: he says he wants to leave Syria during the election all the way to late 2018. The deep state (DS) immediately gets into gear and attempts to arrange things, locally and back home, to make leaving impossible “for the time being.”
Skip to a year later. Trump is shaken awake by Erdogan and realizes that the DS has played him for a sucker for a year. He decides to announce a withdrawal anyway. Howling and gnashing of teeth from the DS and related Congresscritters on how this is “sudden” and “unplanned” etc. He’s forced into a defensive crouch. Naturally, being who he is, uses “grab the oil” as a lifeline.
Similar in Korea and other places.
His campaign promise was to destroy ISIS cities and win in Syria. You will be hard pressed to find a statement in the campaign he wanted to leave Syria. I can’t figure out how you reconcile this…300 spec ops in Syria when he takes office…in early 2017 he deploys 3000 marines, quadruples air strikes, and levels northern Syria. Yet you contend he wants out ? Noone can force his signature on those orders, if they can, he never belonged in office in the first place…remember? Hes his own man ? an outsider ? He continues to send troops into Syria, with his own words and signature.
Well, I would say that his promise was to destroy them (and their families!) as well as “bring the boys home” … difficult to reconcile, yes, but there you are. At least it was better than “we came, we saw, he died” Hillary, some people thought.
As for ordering the withdrawal … the president can order what he wants; what if staff don’t carry out his orders? What if they present him with outlandish predictions of doom if his orders were carried out? Yes, he can dispute their findings and fire them; but he has no military background … no credibility. What if the system is set to stymie him at every turn?
Please note that I agree that his antiwar bonafides are completely suspect. But as Eric points out above, if the choice is between Trump and Hillary/Biden, I don’t know which is the bigger or more effective warmonger. At least Trump occasionally makes the right noises.
That has already happened, Caliman. Remember when he announced the withdrawal of ALL US troops from Syria in mid-December of last year? Remember how his 2 handlers – SecState Pompous Mike Pompeo and Nat. Security Adviser Bonkers John Bolton – viciously sabotaged that agenda? They were supposed to just give him advice, not take over his foreign policy .. The same goes for the Trotskyists aka Neocons.
As for Hillary/Biden, they’d certainly destroy this nation if either were elected POTUS and took office. DJT’s worst problems are his greed when it comes to Syrian and Iraqi oil and his lack of courage when pressed by the Trotskyists aka Neocons and/or Zionist Israel.
“Remember when he announced the withdrawal of ALL US troops from Syria in mid-December of last year? Remember how I blamed his 2 handlers – SecState Pompous Mike Pompeo and Nat. Security Adviser Bonkers John Bolton – for viciously sabotaging that agenda instead of just admitting that Trump is in charge and does exactly what he wants to do?”
Fixed, no charge.
What do you prefer ? “we came we saw, he died” or “he died like a cowardly dog” ?
You say his “antiwar bonafides are totally suspect”..I say, his warmaking is a matter of public record. His actions in Syria make him a war criminal, just like most all his predecessors. He needs to be fired.
So, if I got this right, when I ask “how, exactly, does the DS hamstring trumps antiwar agenda”, your answer is, the DS talks him out of it ?
If that is it, all i can think of, is the classic Mom arguement for young teens…Well, donny, if the DS told you you should jump off a bridge ……
The DS is nothing more, than an extremely powerful lobby, a lobby given further power with the gop Citizens United decision. The idea that trump bends over to this lobby, destroys the notion that he is “beholden to no one”, “his own man”, or an “outsider”.
I know the next arguement….the DS threatens trump or his family physically. Know this, when a soldier enters service, he acknowledges that their may be a bullet waiting for him specifically, that is the job. Simple, risk, or prison. The CIC volunteers for this same situation, part of the job. I guess it would be no surprise that spanky would cave under such a threat. Doesn’t exactly make him a “leader” of any sort.
DS is not just a lobby and they don’t talk him out of it … no one can talk him out of anything. The DS is more than a lobby group … they are the heart of the government, or at least a part of it.
In my view, what the DS has been doing to him is delay, disobey, and leak when (and only when) they disagree with his direction. Order is to bomb Syria after a “chemical attack?” Commands carried out asap. Order is to get out of Syria? Argue, delay, disobey, create conditions on the ground to dissuade, leak to media, etc..
I don’t think you understand what orders are in the military. Argue, delay, disobey an order ? Too many movies.
“Order is to bomb Syria after a “chemical attack?” Commands carried out asap.”
Trump seemed to relish that too much to think that he had to be ordered to do it. He has since said he regrets not doing more. The Sy Hersh article tells about Trump not listening to his advisors who said there was no proof the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. So basically he had to be talked into the “pinprick” that we eventually did.
When Trump tried to pull back in Syria . about 300 or more voted that we should not back out now . While around 50 or so republicans agreed with Trump . So congress is less antiwar than Trump . Our choice is only between Trump and more open war presidents . I voted for Ron Paul when e was running .
And how likely was Ron Paul to win? I submit – zero probability. The same for Tulsi Gabbard. If your only choices have zero chance of winning, and you’re stuck with a delusional nutcase like Trump or a corrupt elitist like Clinton (or the current crowd of Democrats), I don’t see the value of voting.
Kyle, which column or author are you referring to in “you can’t stop defending him….”?
Most Americans won’t wake up until the electric is down for a year and the army barricades the highways. In a representative democracy, stupid wins. Straight to the end.
antar, that is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment, and that Shall NOT be infringed. BTW, no electricity for a month and it is all over, and in a year half the population will be dead.
The 2nd Amendment exists, explicitly, in its own words, to establish a well-regulated militia, because the nascent country had no standing army (yet.) There existed the possibility of raids from from bordering colonies owned by serious powers of the time, among other things. so there needed to be a well-armed population. The 2nd Amendment was not written by the framers to enable the populace to overthrow the gov’t. That’s a later interpretation and a fairly loose reading of the original spirit of the law. Of course, we’re used to a loose interpretation of the law, which has now in the highest court in the land, basically removed the qualifying phrase regarding the well regulated militia and chopped it down to something much more likeable to the firearms industry.
Bullcrap. It was explicitly intended to prevent the central government from being too powerful over the states – and the electorate.
“”None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”
— Thomas Jefferson in Letter to —–, 1803. ME 10:365
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers,
may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little,
if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Richard, great post!!!!! 🙂 HuRaHH!
What’s your point ? Do you actually believe the US government will stick to it’s word ?? LOL !!
No, I don’t think that. It’s just that there are still millions of armed US citizens who are armed and who do think the Constitution means what it says and they will continue to be armed regardless of what anyone else says.
richard,,A very huge DITTO to that!
Obviously doesn’t work. Might ask the people of Vicksburg how those citizen militias fare against the US army. The 2nd amendment hasn’t prevented the US from being the most violent, well armed state in history. Keeping arms for a rebellion ain’t scaring US militancy, at all. In fact, the state ignores armed militias as being to silly to deal with.
drones and copters with infrared > grandpa’s rifle anyday.
There’s a book out which is precisely about how many times militias have been used in US history on various local issues. Sometimes it was effective, sometimes it wasn’t, and sometimes it was used against racial minorities.
To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant’s Face –
Libertarian Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement, by Robert H. Churchill
https://www.amazon.com/Shake-Their-Guns-Tyrants-Face/dp/0472034650
Doesn’t change the fact that the Framers were against a standing army and a central government (to varying degrees depending on the individual) and wished to insure an armed “citizenry” – regardless of how one interprets the “citizenry”. Since virtually every US male owned a gun, it was considered to be inconceivable that such a situation would change.
They did not anticipate that the future US would be filled with people who basically don’t give a damn about who runs the country or how corrupt the central government and state governments get and who aren’t armed.
Nonetheless, given how quickly talk about a new “civil war” in this country has arisen just in the past few months, clearly there are people who think being armed against the central government is a good idea.
The notion that a “militia” would be useless against the current US military is belied by the total lack of effectiveness of said military against the Taliban – a group armed with little more than IEDs, AKs, and some RPGs.
Personally I don’t see the US fighting another civil war because 98% of the population doesn’t have the nerve. Neither are the conditions sufficient to start one or keep it going at this point. Small scale violence would be possible, but nothing like the civil wars we see in Ukraine, Syria, Bosnia or the original US civil war. That could change, however, depending on how the economy and the government changes over the next decades.
Nonetheless, with 80-100 million Americans owning 400 million firearms – a number which exceeds the comhined arms of the US military and police – and 18-20 million of those Americans being concealed carriers (and that has gone up a couple percent just in the last couple months) – that does pose a significant obstacle to overt oppression of the citizenry by the government.
Which is precisely why the politicians want to restrict ownership. Unfortunately for them, that is unenforceable. Even outright confiscation would leave at least ten to thirty percent of firearms in private hands – that would be 40 to 120 million firearms. Not to mention the black market which would spring up – and indeed already exists today with untraceable weapons made in places like Indonesia already being smuggled in to the US.
So the 2nd Amendment actually is irrelevant. The US is armed – and it’s going to stay that way regardless of what anyone thinks.
As usual, the right wing goes ass backwards…..the focus should be on disarming the government, not arming the people. In another example, tariffs on China are pointless, simply boycot chinese goods. Doesnt require a president, or any accounting. It is alarming what the right will organize, and, what they won’t.
Richard, you are spot on about our right to bear arms, and clearly that means semi-autos, like the AR’s and pistols, as so clearly pointed out in the various quotes you posted. Kudos to you and Kudos to our Founders! The 2nd forever!! Anyone who tries to take it away can only be viewed as a tyrant and a traitor and an enemy of the people, the same as an invader of our nations borders. 🙂 !
“The 2nd Amendment exists, explicitly, in its own words, to establish a well-regulated militia”
1) That’s not what it says.
2) That’s not what its author (George Mason) and ratifiers claimed it meant.
You don’t have any damn rights and you never did.
You have temporary privileges that can be revoked at any given time and have been repeatedly throughout American history.
I can’t believe people still believe this bullshit.
I suppose if you still believe voting actually matters or that all we have to do is elect the right person and everything will be 1950’s all over again…..
You live in an oligarchy and that hasn’t changed since the beginning of this country.
True. The Constitution has been violated numerous times by things like suspension of habeas corpus and that within ten years of its being adopted.
But fortunately 80-100 million armed Americans do pose an obstacle to overt oppression of the sort one sees in other countries. It does nothing for lesser levels of oppression, unfortunately, due to the remaining 200 million Americans who are apathetic about the situation.
A recent poll shows half of Americans are willing to violate the First Amendment, let alone the Second.
Poll: Majority of Americans Want First Amendment Rewritten
https://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-majority-of-americans-want-first-amendment-rewritten/
If this sort of thing continues, there might very well be a Second American Revolution – or a Second Civil War – at some point in the future. No country can remain this divided without eventual armed conflict. But I don’t see it happening any time soon.
It depends on what they meant by “the people”. Absolutely certain: not the slaves. I am fairly certain that the 2nd amendment when it was ratified did not give the right to own and bear arms to women hence today. Women were US citizens but that was all. They had no other specific rights. Women, especially on the frontier, owned and used arms for defense and hunting but that had been an unwritten right ever since the arrival of the first settlers.
Males: yes but the property owners were a notch above those who did not own property.
The notion that “the people” meant a unified, non-stratified, single-class nation where everyone had the same rights is untenable. It is a backward projection of today onto those times. It is nonsense and is belied, for example, by the Shays rebellion in which arms were used to kill protesting US citizens.
Madison was perhaps the only representative in Philadelphia who realized that the dividing line was not between the large and small states but between slave states and non-save states. He vaguely anticipated that a big armed conflict might not be between the people and their government but between two or more sovereign states after a split on the basis of slavery.
You are, for the most part, correct.
But we only have two real guides for what the text of the Constitution means:
1) The text itself; and
2) The STATED intentions of its framers/ratifiers as to its meaning.
So, as far as the text itself goes, Mork says:
“The 2nd Amendment exists, explicitly, in its own words, to establish a well-regulated militia”
And that is incorrect. The format of the amendment is “because X, Y,” not “we are establishing X by means of Y.” In fact, the Constitution left the establishment of militias, well-regulated or otherwise, to the states; but the Second Amendment posited a “right of the people” to keep and bear arms” as an independent finding to be respected because that was in theory conducive to the state establishment of “well-regulated militias.” Even if the cause was removed, the theoretical right wouldn’t magically disappear.
Dave posits that I “don’t have any damn rights and … never did.”
Whether he’s right or wrong doesn’t really go to the question of what is being claimed in the Second Amendment. Whether the claim is true or false, the claim was made.
We can argue about “rights” if anyone wants to, but as a practical matter when it comes to any attempt by government to control people (or “the people”) I favor holding that government to its own rules when they forbid the government to do so.
So, as a political matter, if people want “gun control” they need to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the state legislatures, to propose and ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment.
And as a practical matter, there are more than 100 million owners of 300 million guns in the US, and a significant portion of them aren’t going to hand over their guns even if such a constitutional amendment succeeded.
Dear Thomas
Thanks for your elucidation. I was, for fun and entertainment, trying to trigger thoughts about the original meaning by those who wrote the word “the people” into the second amendment. I have a hunch that they meant free males in that specific context but not women and of course not slaves and native Indians (which I forgot!). Of course I do not advocate that women today must turn in their arms and never “bear” them in public if that was so.
There is another thought about the entire 2nd amendment. Suppose that it would not have been ratified. Would New York State and Virginia have remained in the USA? Would North Carolina and Rhode Island who were still outside have joined? The Militia issue was a very fundamental one on Federal power vs. State’s rights and the people as well as leaders of several states were worried about too much federal power under the newfangled constitution.
I believe that there is an analogy between the 2nd and 14th amendments. The 14th amendment made no change in the citizenship of persons born in the USA. They were US citizens at birth before and after the 14th. I think that the 2nd amendment made no changes in the right to own guns and use them legally. People could own and use them legally before and after the 2nd amendment.
After the 14th there have been several legal clarifications about US citizenship. Hence regulations on the ownership and “bearing” of arms by “people” without another amendment is also perfectly legal and I am of course not the first one to say that.
For me the issue today about gun ownership is overwhelmingly “what are you doing with your gun?” And what some “people” are doing with their guns is deeply worrisome.
Got that right.
It’ll be the militarized cops, not the army.
The U.S. military would be sent abroad so as not to make trouble at home.
You made to many good points I don’t for absolute know trump is not antiwar yet . But I do know congress and most of Trumps opposition is pro war
The Russians are saying that, the oil is flowing out, and money is flowing in. The money is going to private military contractors and to US special forces commanders. It is a pretty specific allegation.
Some say Trump trusts the Russians more than his intelligence agencies ? I think I do ?
The Empire deprives the country and it`s people access and the right to it`s resources……so it has the means to rebuild what the US and it`s vassal countries have destroyed.
All so called democratic countries, MSM and rights org. are silence……they are complicit in the crime.
Even this so called Antiwar site calls a crime and theft “Complicated”
I guess the UN`s comment will be “We take notice”
“this so called Antiwar site”….Jason’s reporting is not the site. I think you misinterpret “complicated” in the article. Has trumps deployment into the Kurdish oil area simplified anything ? No, US forces have not “abandoned” the Kurds, they have just changed its center of power to eastern Syria. The move has complicated the situation. A successful bank robbery is not just illegal, it also complicates systems at the bank.
Wait till the #me-too reflects upon the pain felt by US heroes, working hard long hours to secure the sources of energy from barbarians to keep refugees, and little children warm at night. And heartless, racist conservatives would like us to abandon them to their cruel fate!
We would think Pence should warn Trump that taking Syria’s oil would be stealing . We don’t want to be common thieves do we ?
The Trillion Dollar Budgets, The World Conquest Sized Military, The Legions of Bureaucrats and PhD’s….all so the US can be a Petty Thief. Congrats America. *golf clap*
$45 mil/mo is peanuts. Just hand it over to the Syrian gov and be done with it. Of course this would cause another round of condemnation from the peanut gallery that he’s a “Russian asset”.
As I indicated, regardless of what Trump “wants” or thinks he wants, there is no chance that oil will go anywhere – unless they airlift it out of a US base somehow.
Any pipeline will be blown up by proxies being run by Assad or Iran – not to mention any remaining insurgents (it doesn’t take much capability to blow up a pipeline every night as I pointed out happened frequently in Vietnam while I was there.) Trucks will be attacked by IEDs and ambushes regardless of being escorted by US troops (and how costly is that).
So either Trump is being a complete idiot – again – or he’s lying – again. Or both – again.
A case of state sponsored banditry. US is now the biggest fascist roque state in the world with complete discard of international law. the Geneva Cinvention and the UN Charter.
Madison and Hamilton did not begin to argue for the replacement of the Articles by a Constitution because of fear that the almost non-existing Central government (there was no President then) might become too uppity but because the country was deeply in debt from the Revolutionary War and the States did not pay their fair shares, if anything at all, to repay that debt much of which was owned by foreign states. Also because of the almost unity-destructive differences of money and weights and measurements among the States plus taxes levied on imports and exports between States. It was a monumental success but must not be viewed in the context of our current rights which did not exist then.
All the talk about freedom and rebellion from Jefferson and others was propaganda against political opponents and enemies. It had nothing to do with reality. Neither Jefferson, nor Madison, nor Hamilton called for a popular uprising against the now Federal government when it used Militias to destroy the whiskey-tax (Shays) rebellion. After all the American rebellion against the King of England had started on taxes. Most of the Shays rebels probably could not vote in presidential elections hence “no representation, no taxation”. Right? Or when Congress passed he fugitive slave law which denied freedom to people who had voted for freedom with their feet. Or when the Federal government triggered the stupid 1812 war against GB.
With very few exceptions (Adams) these freedom-trumpeting hypocrites owned slaves and knew very well that their slaves were humans whose freedom they denied.
So what did Jefferson really fear that a federal government/President might do in concrete facts?
The Bill of Rights was written for a property-owning male class.
“Oil! How middle-class!” -Jesus Retardo
We are going to take Syria”s? This is bat shit crazy.
yes israel gets the sliver up to and including damascus. turkey gets a swarth of western syria that they covet. the kurds get a middle portion to start their new country. where have you been. you want things to remain the same. that butcher assad will be taken out soon anyway.
Well,like Assad says, at least Trump is transparent about what the U.S. wants.
Trump has at least, defined the problem. Too bad he can’t shake being conflated as the problem or yet solve it.
Popular silence, though, cannot be taken as acquiescence. Most people possibly fear falling under the lens of the surveillance state.
The popularity of superheroes in entertainment, suggests people hope someone in the right place does the right thing for them.
Syria should simply missile every oil field the Empire occupies. No oil, difficult to stick around. China and Russia will help rebuild everything and the empire will be left out.. It is using empire psychology … if we cannot have it, no one will.