Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The US should go to war against Russia? Bad Idea!!

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Hillary, Trump, and War With Russia

The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington

By Fred Reed

August 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it. Russia once made large numbers of second-rate tanks. That worm has turned. This thing is way advanced and outguns the American M1A2, having a 125mm smoothbore firing APFSDS long-rods to the Abrams 120mm. (As Hillary would know, that’s Armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot. You did know, didn’t you, Hill?) This isn’t the place for a disquisition on armor, but the above beast is a very advanced design with unmanned turret and, well, a T34 it isn’t. (I was once an aficionado of tanks. If interested, here and here.)

A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf, and Kursk.

Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and ISIS, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here?

The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates – think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone – with other people’s lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America’s recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them.

Fred’s Biography, As He Tells It: Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a disorganized past, has worked on staff for Army Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune, Federal Computer Week, and The Washington Times. http://fredoneverything.org/

Guest


Guest

We agree that war with Russia is a bad idea.

Thinking the T14 is any better than our POS F-35 is where we disagree. Both are tech bottomless pits. The damn thing broke down parading through Moscow last year.  You think non-veteran T-14 crews can compete with the veteran M1A2 crews and instructors? That's not an overestimation of their ability.  They are just that damn good.

Obama has completed a fundamental change of our military for sure and that is his legacy- gutting the military even beyond what Carter accomplished. It is no longer capable of a two theatre war. Why? We just don't have the numbers for it and to get there would require a draft to fill out the ranks to do so. None of our politicians have the balls for a draft.  Fighting Russia would require enough numbers and a return to the Cold War Era of battle management of which our own generals know we lack the skill to do at this time given our training is more  for an asymmetric threat.

Then there was Obama's BS pivot to the Pacific which has been a goat rope. Obama's response? Bomber flights over the contested new areas where China is building islands to expand their already large Asian sphere of influence is just an irritant to the Chinese or sending carrier battle groups into those areas as well. Our only saving grace is that we owe them so much money that war isn't a solution to their problems- yet. When they decide that fighting a war and writing off the debt we owe is worth it, all hell will break lose.

Hillary is as big a neocon at there ever was. She is beholden too..to all the industries that profit off war. We will go to war with Russia with her as POTUS.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Tellthetruth wrote:Obama has completed a fundamental change of our military for sure and that is his legacy- gutting the military even beyond what Carter accomplished.

You lie. You did not serve under Carter's military. The post-Vietnam military was gutted by Congress before Carter became POTUS. Reagan began building it back up around 1982. We were astounded at the money that suddenly became available for the DOD's use (even though all of it was borrowed against future generations).

The military from 1975 until Reagan was strong enough to defend America's interests. Russia was the USSR and was more powerful then than at any point in the USSR's existence. They had 1,600 heavy ICBMs aimed at our heartland, too. Our military was strong enough to defend our interests then and it is strong enough to defend it now.

Us picking a fight with either Russia or China would be more stupid than Bush's very stupid 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

My Socialist good friend Wordslinger posted this from an article he read:

"And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity."

Perhaps Wordslinger could share with us that if this is true, how does Russia now possess Crimea?

If that is true, why does Russia have 40,000 troops on the border of the Crimea?

We also see Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama taking his typical BOLD ACTION...writting a stern letter to the Russians.

U.S. scolds Russia over Syria bombing
By Nahal Toosi
05/23/16 03:05 PM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/white-house-russia-syria-bombing-223485#ixzz4Hvg3hGK3

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Tellthetruth wrote:Obama has completed a fundamental change of our military for sure and that is his legacy- gutting the military even beyond what Carter accomplished.

You lie. You did not serve under Carter's military. The post-Vietnam military was gutted by Congress before Carter became POTUS. Reagan began building it back up around 1982. We were astounded at the money that suddenly became available for the DOD's use (even though all of it was borrowed against future generations).

The military from 1975 until Reagan was strong enough to defend America's interests. Russia was the USSR and was more powerful then than at any point in the USSR's existence. They had 1,600 heavy ICBMs aimed at our heartland, too. Our military was strong enough to defend our interests then and it is strong enough to defend it now.

Us picking a fight with either Russia or China would be more stupid than Bush's very stupid 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Wow this Zvug is off the deep end. Does he always accuse folks of things they don't say? Where does it say I said I served prior to or during the Carter Era? Carter ruined what was left of the Navy to the point Reagan had a goal of a 600 ship navy as a way to thwart intentions of our enemies on the seas.

Just like Carter, Obama has completed a fundamental transformation to a military that is back to not enough pilots, not enough spare parts for its weapons systems , and not able to do the job it was created to do. He's accomplished his mission. Spin it how you want Zvug, we are militarily worn out and understaffed. Funny how it's that the Dems are always dismantling the military to pay for social programs and each generation since WW1 we have done so only to get involved in some sort of conflict when our enemies see us at our weakest. Our enemies see us at our weakest. China is on a huge buildup, Russia is back to challenging out aircraft and is rebuilding, etc. trump was right too, our Allies need to pay more of the costs of the alliances. We can't afford it anymore. It's the very reason they have free health care and short work week....because we have taken the lion share of the bills for their protection. That might be cool with you, but it's not for me.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:My Socialist good friend Wordslinger posted this from an article he read:

"And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity."

Perhaps Wordslinger could share with us that if this is true, how does Russia now possess Crimea?

If that is true, why does Russia have 40,000 troops on the border of the Crimea?

We also see Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama taking his typical BOLD ACTION...writting a stern letter to the Russians.  

U.S. scolds Russia over Syria bombing
By Nahal Toosi
05/23/16 03:05 PM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/white-house-russia-syria-bombing-223485#ixzz4Hvg3hGK3



Sorry Charlie, but I haven't any memory of posting any of the above. I'll accept that I did ... maybe. I know you keep a well oiled library of everything I post because I'm your worst enemy ... but I don't keep anything you post and never will. LOL

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:Hillary, Trump, and War With Russia

The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington

By Fred Reed

August 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it.

[...]

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.


[...]

http://fredoneverything.org/

Here's the post...you don't seem to recall.

Fear you?  Why?

You don't even remember what you post.  Sad.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Hillary, Trump, and War With Russia

The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington

By Fred Reed

August 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it.

[...]

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.


[...]

http://fredoneverything.org/

Here's the post...you don't seem to recall.

Fear you?  Why?

You don't even remember what you post.  Sad.

Thanks for the update. The Crimea issue is overwith -- obviously the US didn't think it was worth a nuclear war. What the author of the article is trying to communicate is that our neocons and the current DOD keep demonizing Russia as a logical threat we need to tend to -- and on this one, it appears Trump is better than Hillary. Going to war with Russia would indeed be a terrible idea!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Wordslinger wrote:Going to war with Russia would indeed be a terrible idea!

I agree, 'Slinger. The U.S. managed to avoid direct military conflict with Russia from 1945 to current times. Why do we need to pick a fight with them now? They still have enough nukes to annihilate the United States.

The globalist elites have always had a tough time controlling Russia from the time of the Czars. Even when Rothschild banking interests helped bankroll the overthrow of the Czars, and the establishment of their communist experiment there, they never could fully control the Bolsheviks. Stalin played along with them, but ultimately, was his own man. Because Russia has always exerted independence from their complete control, they may be wanting to step-up their pressure against them, to include inciting a war. Why else would NATO be establishing base after base closer and closer to the Russian border?

They have a right to defend themselves just like we would have that right if Russian troops were suddenly based in Canada.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

And... the Russians are moving armament to the Ukraine border. They have no fear of nato or Obama. It's clear.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:And... the Russians are moving armament to the Ukraine border. They have no fear of nato or Obama. It's clear.


Why should they fear Nato, Obama or the USA? Is it written somewhere that everyone needs to fear us?


Russia has the right to move its troops where ever it cares to inside its own borders. I think what you resent about Russia is that they don't seem to fear us ... and, in fact, considering how many neocons still exist in Washington, D.C., they should! Hell I fear Nato and Obama. Both would get us into a war we couldn't win in a micro second.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum