012bpresidential2bcandidates2b 2bwarmongers2bof2bthe2belite.jpg

‘Bush Doctrine’ and Never-Ending ‘War On Terror’ Supported by Every Single Political Candidate

Millions of Americans are tuning in this election cycle, to watch the politicians debate about how they will oppress us just a little bit less than the next guy. The candidates may seem to disagree on some issues, but when it comes to war, all of them are in agreement.

by John Vibes

Every candidate has promised to continue the wars that were started in the Bush and Obama eras, and they all refuse to even question the very premise of these conflicts, the Bush Doctrine and the war on terror.

After 9/11, the Bush administration put forward a philosophy of pre-emptive war that has infected American politics ever since and kept the country in a constant state of war.

The “war on terror” was basically an excuse for the US government to go to war whenever they wanted to, and both the mainstream media and the American public have accepted this mentality ever since, although some on the left waited for Obama to get into office before they began openly supporting pre-emptive war.

When Obama became president, the anti-war left disappeared and began to support the war on terror mentality that they fought so hard against during the Bush years.

In the years since the war on terror began, the US and NATO have created a total disaster in the Middle East, destroying the infrastructure of entire countries, and funding opposing sides in civil wars and other conflicts.

The further violence that this has created has then provided the US military with even more justifications to create even more war, in the name of fighting terror.

During their pillage of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government funneled billions of dollars worth and weapons and support towards rebel groups in those and other countries that were intended to destabilize governments in the area that were not friendly with the US and help them install puppet dictatorships.

These plans backfired when the rebel groups turned on the US military, because after all, they are an occupying enemy. The rebel groups then began to assemble and form their own alliances, eventually becoming the terrorist group known as ISIS.

Even after these rebel groups showed that they would not be able to be controlled and that they were terrorizing local areas, the US government still continued to give them money and weapons, in hopes that they would destabilize the established governments, and provide an excuse for more conquest in the region.

Sadly, this is an excuse that all the major presidential candidates have accepted. Even Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul who are the favorite candidates of activists on either side of aisle, are both supporters of the war on terror.

Paul has said that he wants to declare war on ISIS, and Sanders has recently promised to continue the drone war overseas.

Sanders has also consistently voted to give military funding to both Saudi Arabia and Israel and has voted to continue the wars overseas on multiple occasions. Both candidates continue to perpetuate the scare of the war on terror, both have also called for the prosecution of Edward Snowden, and the mainstream candidates like Trump and Clinton are even worse.

When Obama was campaigning, he promised to end the wars but then just ended up lying about it. This time around the candidates aren’t even lying, they are just openly parroting the Bush doctrine and fearmongering about ISIS as a justification for war.

It is not the job of the US government to police the world, and everywhere they have went they have made the situation worse, and done whatever they could to benefit themselves and their allied corporations.

The US political establishment has mostly convinced the American public that it is their duty to “rebuild” the Middle East after they made the “mistake” of destroying it, but the people living in these countries do not want the US military to be occupying their country, so they really do just need to go home, although this is never presented as a viable option by the media or the political establishment.