Home | About | Donate

Trump Pushes US Closer to War

Trump Pushes US Closer to War

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations on Tuesday moved the world closer to war. The speech was Hitlerian in tone and content, filled with vitriol and grievance. Germany, said Hitler, was stabbed in the back by its own leaders after World War I. The Obama administration, declared Trump, signed an agreement with Iran that was “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Trump threatened, from the very podium of the UN General Assembly, to “totally destroy” North Korea, a country of 25 million people.

3 Likes

I agree. We must throw Trump and this useless Congress out.

Only We the People can.

5 Likes

Nuremberg Principles - Controlled UN - WMD - Mushroom Clouds - 16 Words - Imminent Threats - Preemptive War[s]:

Updated and/or Alternate Headline:

Trump [and Cohorts] [FORCE] US Closer to [Three] War[s]:
At UN, “The speech was Hitlerian in tone and content.” (Worldwide Regime Changes: a veiled WWIII, enabled by “New Pearl Harbor” increments, and fulfilled through all out Nuclear Attacks – if they so deem necessary.)

1 Like

Because speaking out against war has gotten us so far.

They figured out how to ignore us after Viet Nam and they’ve never looked back. Wish it weren’t so.

8 Likes

It took us a few years to help bring about an end to the Vietnam War, so, never forget how many lives we helped save had we done nothing.

Now, war is really big business. Big bucks. Private armies of Military Contractors that we hardly ever hear about.

It’s totally Evil.

8 Likes

Speaking out against war has gotten us farther than you have realized. After Nam they watched public response to intervention like a hawk (pun intended)! They were noticeably gunshy about sending US troops anywhere except in small tentative moves. Instead they tried to avoid reigniting the public’s post Nam antipathy for war by relying on proxies. Most noticeably were the Contras - a conflict which they were never able to bring about direct intervention. The public needed to be deceived as it was still heavily against engaging in another Nam type intervention war. Proxies in Africa as well. Gamesmanship in Panama notwithstanding. Grenada even embarrassed them but it was a pre-test case of testing the waters (interventionist war) with the tip of your toe.

It was only after 9/11 that ‘they’ were truly ready to risk direct troop intervention/occupation. The first Gulf War was a test case - a war that wasn’t really a war. They seemed to say - ‘Look everybody! See war can be quick and easy for us and intervention kept to a minimum and short in length.’ After 9/11 they went back to the full interventionist mindset that had brought us to invade Vietnam. Regular WAR had been rehabilitated. They have maintained that sensibility at all costs ( lest an anti-war/Vietnam era attitude return amongst the citizenry once again ) for 16 damn years. It almost seems like keeping troops in an occupation keeps war itself (as an attitude or concept shared by the public) alive.

Do they worry that if we left the thoroughly destabilized Middle East that we wouldn’t be able to send troops on another intervention anywheres else? One can only wonder?

We say ‘Give Peace a chance!’ It worries the warhawks still but more importantly speaking out against war cramps ‘their’ style!

Do ‘they’ say amongst themselves - ‘Hold on to war while you’ve still got it!’ Warhawks apparently do!

Speaking out against war is what it is all about otherwise they are given a free hand!

Peace!

9 Likes

Conservatives are driven by market monopolies to profit and power at any cost regardless. Their profits, legal, illegal, humane or inhumane, scientific or not, give cons the money-power to run our lives. Progressive’s most pressing issue seems to be to dump Trump and let the GOPers run the show. This paradigm needs to change. Working within corrupt representative government has not worked.

3 Likes

Jeffrey Sachs writes an excellent article here and he is correct in so much.

But politically, Congress is silent as a grave. Trump would just be a sideshow and and an embarrassment if Congress was doing its job.

They wiggle in anticipation of what will happen to their military industrial complex laden stock profiles if we can go to war.

A disgusting spectacle and we the people must pick up the slack.

9 Likes

Good article by Jeffrey Sachs, that Trump pushes US closer to (nuclear) war.

Who is the most dangerous man in the world? It is certainly not Kim Jong Un, who is in my view, very dangerous, but compared to Trump, is a choir boy! Because with Trump and a cowardly, obsequious Congress the whole world could be on the brink of nuclear war.

Folks: they must be stopped before it is too late!

5 Likes

“The Trump administration is reportedly preparing to ease export rules to allow American arms manufacturers to sell more weapons, including assault rifles, to foreign buyers, despite concerns that weakened oversight will fuel global conflict and threaten national security.”

This is another sure sign that Resident Rump is leading the world to war, in this case obviously cheered on by racist, money-grubbing merchants of war and of course their greasy cohorts in the petroleum business now offering big discounts in luxury air travel to cheesy hotel golf resorts.

5 Likes

Correction:

“Both political parties of the ‘Duopoly’…”

3 Likes

Nuclear is the key word missing from both the headline and the opening sentence. USA has been continuously at war for a lot of years, during almost its entire history as a government.

Sachs also made a key error in citing the Cuban missile crisis, a propagandic term used to hide the fact it began when Ike put IRBMs in Turkey and JFK continued the policy and led Khruschev to respond in kind.

2 Likes

The “Gulf War” phase of the US war against Iraq was very much a real war to those on the receiving end of the bombs. There were probably more than a million deaths due to that war prior to 2001.

4 Likes

The reference was to strategy not to the prosecution of the war itself. Sorry you misread the point as it was rhetorical not literal. Besides the fact that I never said it wasn’t a real war. This is dumb.

gde,

You’re grabbing the wrong end of the stick. Sachs was not addressing global nuclear tit for tat, nor was he naively regurgitating propaganda. He quite clearly was stating how shockingly easy a military shown down in the nuclear age can get out of control. Sachs didn’t specify ‘nuclear weapons’ because it’s taken for granted. The ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’, by whatever name it’s identified, was the greatest example of the Doomsday Clock pushing right against midnight. It wasn’t a case of a single commander making a yes/no decision, as has happened more than once in the nuclear era, although that did occur when a single Russia commander declined to ‘OK’ using nuclear tipped torpedoes after the US navy started depth bombing Russian submarines. The whole of the ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’ was such a flash point that words don’t do it justice. Besides Nikita Khrushchev responding to the US placement of missiles in Turkey, there was the reality of the Bay of Pig Invasion that happened less that a year earlier.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is unique since the world has gone nuclear. The neocons always push for military ‘intervention’. They even make plans for a nuclear ‘first strike’ against Russia. Indeed, nowhere in world is ‘off the table’ for that mentality. But their psychopathic talk and behavior is always wrapped within the assumption that any military actions will be won. When the Cuban Missile Crisis came into existence that assumption wasn’t there. It could have gotten out of control. So yes, Sachs was spot on to refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the JFK comment.

1 Like

In my three score and ten I have never seen any president make the world SO much more dangerous in so many ways so very fast.

It has to be deliberate.

3 Likes

Yep – once again the WH Orangutan (oops, I just gave djt a compliment on his intellectual understandings) is acting like a 3 year old (seriously ad hominem insults are the #1 way that kids attack other kids)

Ooops, I just gave him a second compliment on his intellectual understandings. So let’s make that an “evil, satanic, narcissistic, sociopath 3 year old”–much better.

4 Likes

Never give up; never surrender; the People will triumph over the oppressors!

1 Like

how??? and my question is partly based on the premise that actually we have very little time to get the expulsion accomplished. so many clocks are ticking away…faster and faster.

i can’t remember whom i’ve asked. did you watch the kevin shipp expose of the shadow government and deep state? explains why we…er, the owners of the government need perpetual war. but they’re not too dumb. we ain’t got the draft yet. then there’ll be hell to pay, more anti-war protests in the streets…