Why Are We Even Going To War Anymore?
A discussion questioning the purpose of modern U.S. military involvement, with speakers expressing regret about past wars like Iraq and criticizing current military spending priorities. The conversation argues that recent conflicts don't serve to defend American freedom or interests.
Summary
This transcript captures a critical discussion about the justification for modern American military engagement. The speakers begin by questioning when the U.S. last went to war to actually defend freedom, immediately pivoting to criticism of border security policies. Both participants express regret about their previous support for the Iraq War, now viewing it as serving corporate interests rather than national defense. One speaker specifically mentions Dick Cheney and Halliburton (referred to as 'KBR Hallebert') as beneficiaries. The conversation escalates to fundamental questions about military recruitment and purpose, with claims that the U.S. is funding the Taliban while they allegedly facilitate illegal immigration through South America. The speakers conclude by questioning why anyone would enlist to fight in conflicts like Ukraine that they view as not serving American interests, ultimately asking what the military is actually defending.
Key Insights
- Both speakers admit they were strong supporters of the Iraq War at the time but now believe it was a mistake
- One speaker claims the Iraq War was primarily beneficial to Dick Cheney and Halliburton rather than serving national interests
- The speaker asserts the U.S. is funding the Taliban $40-87 million per week while they run the Afghan government
- The discussion claims the Taliban is creating legitimate passports and facilitating movement through South and Central America to the U.S. border
- The speakers argue that potential military recruits have no clear purpose or enemy to defend against in current conflicts
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] When's the last time we actually went to war to fight for our freedom? >> We won't even defend our southern border. >> Should we have been in Iraq? >> I was a huge proponent of at the time, but in retrospect, absolutely not. >> So was I. I don't think we should have been there. I think that was all for Cheney and KBR Hallebert. I don't even think we're defending the country. Why the are people even signing up to go to war for what? Whose war? It's not our war. We're funding the Taliban 40 to$87 million a week. They run the government over there. They're making legitimate passports for these guys. They fly them all…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Shawn Ryan Show
He Called Kash Patel The Weakest Man Alive
The speaker makes critical allegations about Kash Patel, characterizing him as weak and questioning his associations. The speaker also details claims about Kash Patel's manager Ali Abdelaziz, including alleged post-9/11 arrest on passport fraud charges and subsequent FBI informant status.
Do You Believe the Charlie Kirk 30-06 Theory?! 😳
A discussion questioning the "Charlie Kirk 30-06 theory" where speakers express skepticism about the narrative while introducing claims about pentagram involvement and demonic elements in unspecified events.
Bud Light Turned On Dustin Poirier?! 😳
The speaker critiques Bud Light's decision to drop sponsorship of Dustin Poirier following an incident where he got drunk on a plane and attempted to fight a black cop. The speaker argues that while Poirier made a mistake, Bud Light should have offered support rather than abandonment, and criticizes the brand for hypocritically distancing itself after the controversy.
He Needs a Friend Named Jason...😂
Two individuals review the SIG 300 Blackout Rattler rifle, highlighting its features including a collapsible stock, flip-up irons, SIG optic, flashlight, and suppressor. One person expresses inability to afford shooting 300 Blackout ammunition and humorously requests that SIG provide subsonic ammo for testing.
Sean Strickland vs Candace Owens?! 😮💨
Two speakers debate Candace Owens' credibility and approach to political commentary. One argues she undermines movements by mixing conspiracy theories with facts, while the other defends her investigative questioning and suggests they should meet to discuss their disagreements.