Do ~40% of Americans really want their country to become a rampaging conqueror?
Related:
We truly are in the stupidest of timelines.
b) Military option at this point only requires multiple C-17s, 6 hours (or less), and (if we're lucky) a resignation or two?
Using war to divert unwanted attention away from domestic issues is a proven approach.
Not quite, there's a method in the madness. This isn't new in the world of politics - nationalism and expansionist warmongering have always been used in approximately the same way - part distraction and part dog whistling.
Distraction from economic and security policies that aren't in the public interest - the prospect of looting dazzles the mind and makes it easy to utilize the population for concentrating the power in the hands of the looters.
At the same time, it's a dog-whistle to other closeted looters (aka the Putins of the world) signaling that world policing is now passe and pirating has become an honorable profession.
While the newly-hatched pirates salivate over each-other's land, reject all prior agreements as "not something written proving ownership" and proceed to kill each other, they provide more distraction and more justification for war and looting. Mission accomplished.
> Do ~40% of Americans really want their country to become a rampaging conqueror?
That percentage seems a bit low to me. Have you heard any rational arguments against that kind of policy? Something that spells it out, as I did above, together with the risks for the public it entails? Something in mainstream media outside of rare user comments?
Why would people object if no authoritative voice objects on rational grounds?
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES