@MentORPHEUS

Both wings have taken turns over the decades making the MIC money printer go brrrrrt, while whichever side that was not officially in charge puts on a pearl clutching theatre, or quietly assists.

Some of us remember signing up under Clinton and the bullshit in Kosovo/Yugoslavia. Under Obama; Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, as well as subversion of what is supposed to be sole Congressional authority to declare war. And there is probably a ton of other shit I missed there due to having more pressing concerns at the time than an obsessive compilation of details for online arguments years later.

Soldiers still being sent to die for the benefit of the entrenched elites, and taxes extracted from the masses to be laundered back later, regardless of the label and mask they wear at the time, or the slimy rhetoric they prattle.

@Overkill_Engine

when I encounter someone mired in that in that to what I perceive to be a borderline irrational degree, I do not feel any particular motivation to engage with them further.

This is where I differ from a lot of the population apparently. I see a wrongness in a community that matters to me, and I feel a Faustian compulsion to confront and correct it, even as most of the community itself passively or tacitly accepts it. I spent a quarter century on an industry forum going back to when it was a glorified BBS, arguing with one particular guy who bought every right wing talking point to the table but never evidence or the ability to critically analyze his own claims.

It's bizarre to see the same practices and standards emerge time and again on The Red Pill given the nature of THAT metaphor.

Calling those wars neoLIB is like "RFK actually shot Sirhan" level of opposite of how they were actually initiated and supported. What is the utility of that, even towards a both parties are becoming the same claim?

@Typo-MAGAshiv

The distinction you're trying to make is a moot distinction.

Personally I view the distinction about as important as arguing about the caliber of round a firing squad is using to execute you with. Or worrying about the silverware being unpolished while ones house is burning down. Or the the exact taxonomy of the termite responsible for killing the tree that is currently falling on you.

The entire neocon/neolib divide is from my point of view in the context of having served in the institutions being exploited by them is a blatant kayfaybe intended on keep people distracted and arguing about what are in the grand scheme of things, stupid bullshit.

And when I encounter someone mired in that in that to what I perceive to be a borderline irrational degree, I do not feel any particular motivation to engage with them further. They either grasp it or they do not, and I have no further duty to them.

@Overkill_Engine I see what you're getting at, but no.

I came of age in the mid 80s and was politically aware and active when the Gulf War came around. I was strongly on the against the war side of the whole thing from before the average citizen really grokked that actual war was at stake.

Saddam had openly announced that territory held by Kuwait belonged to Iraq and that he would reclaim it by force if necessary. The Neocon Bush administration took the position that America didn't care about the internal affairs of the two countries.

They did care, for once Iraq moved into Kuwait, the Neocons had a pretext for war, which they called "Saddams naked aggression."

It was about 3 to 6 months till the shooting began, and during that period, the average sentiment was not favorable toward America going it alone and risking American soldiers lives in Another Vietnam.

Conservative politicians and pundits were the ONLY ones beating the war drum steadily. Everyday Dems and Repubs alike remained pretty cool on the prospect.

I participated in a number of HUGE anti war protests at the Federal building and mingled and interacted with people who attended. Pretty much every branch of Liberalism was there in force, and there were some mostly younger family types who said they were conservative but had doubts about this particular conflict. This huge crowd of thousands came out to the LA Federal building every weekend for months. There was no "for the war" demonstration in the whole period.

About 3 weekends before the war broke out, suddenly this guy appeared at the protest with a very insulting sign about stupid hippie peace freaks, and actively harassing and antagonizing the peace demonstrators. He was a walking stereotype, muscular, chiseled features, military buzz cut, and he was throwing out anti war protestor and Vietnam Era references. He was some kind of operative, with a small quiet entourage discreetly staying near him. I sussed most of these out, but missed the one who stepped forward and blocked me as I moved to draw a peace sign on the guy's sign while two ragamuffin operatives of my own distracted him. The guy looked like a middle aged LEO on his day off but his demeanor and movement was that of someone with multi discipline education in scene control and impression management; nothing like an average beat cop type.

When the war started and the same 8 second clip of greenish phosphor night vision battle footage was shown ad nauseum, the meme of the day became SUPPORT OUR TROOPS which Fox News led in propagating.

Like a switch was thrown, mainstream public opinion shifted pro war, and people on the fence or still against the war largely fell silent under intense social pressure to keep so. Lingering collective distaste for the way conscripted soldiers were treated returning in the closing years of Vietnam got actively leveraged by propagandists.

A pro war, support troops position literally became the Conservative brand identity. The culture became so tense that speaking against the war could get shouting breaking out in genteel social settings, and friendships were tested and broken everywhere over the topic. This persisted for years after the conflict was ended, and defined and steered public opinion to follow the path of eternal war that was to follow, exactly as predicted by many factions of the mostly socially liberal people who had the foresight to protest that war MONTHS before it broke out.

AFTER the war started THEN pro war demonstrators came out of the woodwork. The police kept them on the far side Of Wilshire Blvd. Unlike the extremely diverse largely liberal anti war side of the street, the pro war demographic was almost exclusively white and well off. In contrast to protestors who rode 3 buses to the event, the pro war crowd largely arrived in vehicles like brand new Audis so high end that James Bond would look right at home product-placed in one.

Those are some of my firsthand observations deep in the gulf War event sequence. Based upon literally everything I saw and experienced, calling it a liberal war is absolutely asinine.