Description

America needs to review history when deciding where to go next in the war on terror. Looking back, the majority of Americans believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. If that’s the case, we need to take our past experience into account when thinking about foreign policy going forward.

Bill O’Reilly and David Letterman had a heated debate in the wake of the Iraq war. Will Americans continue to have these kinds of important conversations going forward? Republicans (and many Democrats) were against a war with Syria over Obama’s “red line”, but how will they feel when Donald Trump starts a new war in the middle east?

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

I am the CEO of Preuss Media LLC as well as a 20-something political commentator, blogger, talker, musician, bookworm, and weight lifter. Although lacking a formal college degree (something I boast about), my strange brain contains a wealth of knowledge of economics, political science, and philosophy.

discussions

  • Decades from now, when the leading political figures of this era are dead or dying and will thus not be prosecuted for anything, classified information from this era will be released. This will show that Ambassador Chris Stevens either knew something, did something, or was about to do something that the Obama regime hated. Killing one’s own ambassador would be political suicide, but when violence broke out in Benghazi, Obama, Clinton, and the rest chose not to let a crisis go to waste.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The Drone Papers The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • In Iraq, twenty-five years of carnage, suffering, horror, privation, devastation, and we see the results today. After all, it was 1990 when the U.S. government decided it could improve Iraq by bombing the country, followed by a decades of crushing sanctions. But it wasn’t enough so the U.S. overthrew the government and installed a puppet regime. Here we are a quarter century later from the beginnings of war, and every bit of anything the U.S. ever claimed to achieve is gone, as the country is ripped in every direction by civil war and the U.S. installed regime looks to be a goner. And what now? The only thing that everyone seems to really really hate is the U.S. and anyone who was rewarded for their cooperation. I don’t see any real way for Obama to do anything here at all. But it is hard to imagine that the U.S. would just sit by and let whatever happens just happen. What’s next?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies