Home
IS THIS A MILITARY COUP?

There is a real element in each group who disagree with Biden


Did Biteme and Blinkin lie? Does Suckawhore and Jiminten and Calledumb lie? Does a bear schiett in the woods.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...arned-of-afghan-collapse-in-july-report/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ps-afghanistan-maintain-stability-video/
And?
If BHO had swallowed his pride and chewed Stan McCrystal's a$$ rather than firing him over the Rolling Stone article back in 2010, our situation is Afghanistan would likely be much different today. Heck, if DJT had listened to McMaster things would likely be much different, better, today. While the buck does stop with POTUS, people who hold that office and who have no military experience and little understanding of military capabilities would do well to listen to people who do what is in the best interests of this Country rather what is the safe political move or what is best for them and their career.

Remember that Biden didn;t want to go after OBL in Pakistan, too dangerous to BHO's reelection for a second term if it failed. Tony Blinken was JRB's national security advisor during JRB's 1st term as VP, i wonder what sort of skeletons are hanging in that closet?

You should read the Rolling Stone article that got McCrystal fired, he said then that Biden's plan for Afghanistan would turn it into "Chaosistan" and he, McCrystal, was right.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
IS THIS A MILITARY COUP?

There is a real element in each group who disagree with Biden


Did Biteme and Blinkin lie? Does Suckawhore and Jiminten and Calledumb lie? Does a bear schiett in the woods.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...arned-of-afghan-collapse-in-july-report/


Sorry not possible because Biden is not making any decisions
Nah...they're just doing what Facebook and Amazon tell them to do.
Winning
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
If BHO had swallowed his pride and chewed Stan McCrystal's a$$ rather than firing him over the Rolling Stone article back in 2010, our situation is Afghanistan would likely be much different today. Heck, if DJT had listened to McMaster things would likely be much different, better, today. While the buck does stop with POTUS, people who hold that office and who have no military experience and little understanding of military capabilities would do well to listen to people who do what is in the best interests of this Country rather what is the safe political move or what is best for them and their career.

Remember that Biden didn;t want to go after OBL in Pakistan, too dangerous to BHO's reelection for a second term if it failed. Tony Blinken was JRB's national security advisor during JRB's 1st term as VP, i wonder what sort of skeletons are hanging in that closet?

You should read the Rolling Stone article that got McCrystal fired, he said then that Biden's plan for Afghanistan would turn it into "Chaosistan" and he, McCrystal, was right.


You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
Like I said previously, I'd pay Pres. Vlad Putin $2 to drop a nuke on D.C. - everybody in that town deserves to die for what they've done to America over the previous decades.
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Like I said previously, I'd pay Pres. Vlad Putin $2 to drop a nuke on D.C. - everybody in that town deserves to die for what they've done to America over the previous decades.



How do I pitch in? I got six bucks!
Originally Posted by irfubar
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
If BHO had swallowed his pride and chewed Stan McCrystal's a$$ rather than firing him over the Rolling Stone article back in 2010, our situation is Afghanistan would likely be much different today. Heck, if DJT had listened to McMaster things would likely be much different, better, today. While the buck does stop with POTUS, people who hold that office and who have no military experience and little understanding of military capabilities would do well to listen to people who do what is in the best interests of this Country rather what is the safe political move or what is best for them and their career.

Remember that Biden didn;t want to go after OBL in Pakistan, too dangerous to BHO's reelection for a second term if it failed. Tony Blinken was JRB's national security advisor during JRB's 1st term as VP, i wonder what sort of skeletons are hanging in that closet?

You should read the Rolling Stone article that got McCrystal fired, he said then that Biden's plan for Afghanistan would turn it into "Chaosistan" and he, McCrystal, was right.


You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?


I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Like I said previously, I'd pay Pres. Vlad Putin $2 to drop a nuke on D.C. - everybody in that town deserves to die for what they've done to America over the previous decades.

LOL

Not only have you made The List, you have graduated to the top of The List.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
IS THIS A MILITARY COUP?

/


NO
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by irfubar
[quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
You don't turn military men and their industrial suppliers loose to do what they will. It will keep us in foreign wars and bankrupt us which is what happened.
well they aided and abetted his actions and plans, and now they are covering their butts.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by irfubar
[quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
You don't turn military men and their industrial suppliers loose to do what they will. It will keep us in foreign wars and bankrupt us which is what happened.


DDE supported NATO and established SEATO. The U.S. kept Armies on foreign soil during DDE's 8 years in office, in Europe and in South Korea. The presence of U.S. militrary forces in those places may have kept our enemies from starting, or continuing, broader conflicts.

I don't see how my comments regarding what might have been a better outcome if Stanley McChrystal had been retained as the commander in Afghanistan in 2010 have to do with expanding or condinuing the war. McChrystal was a JSOC guy, not a conventional Army guy, and probably would have minimized the number of boots on the ground. Like John Paul Vann said in Vietnam in the early 1960's when he was an advisor, "This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane.".
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by irfubar
[quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
You don't turn military men and their industrial suppliers loose to do what they will. It will keep us in foreign wars and bankrupt us which is what happened.


DDE supported NATO and established SEATO. The U.S. kept Armies on foreign soil during DDE's 8 years in office, in Europe and in South Korea. The presence of U.S. militrary forces in those places may have kept our enemies from starting, or continuing, broader conflicts.

I don't see how my comments regarding what might have been a better outcome if Stanley McChrystal had been retained as the commander in Afghanistan in 2010 have to do with expanding or condinuing the war. McChrystal was a JSOC guy, not a conventional Army guy, and probably would have minimized the number of boots on the ground. Like John Paul Vann said in Vietnam in the early 1960's when he was an advisor, "This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane.".
And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by jaguartx
IS THIS A MILITARY COUP?

/


NO

The coup occurred after midnight of election day 2020. They deposed the sitting president, the legitimate winner of the presidential election, and installed a puppet in his place. It was a coordinated effort by every level of the entrenched establishment, the controlled MSM included. Same for the RNC.
Originally Posted by Hastings
And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.

Bingo, as Pat Buchanan laid out in his book on the subject.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by irfubar
[quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
You don't turn military men and their industrial suppliers loose to do what they will. It will keep us in foreign wars and bankrupt us which is what happened.


DDE supported NATO and established SEATO. The U.S. kept Armies on foreign soil during DDE's 8 years in office, in Europe and in South Korea. The presence of U.S. militrary forces in those places may have kept our enemies from starting, or continuing, broader conflicts.

I don't see how my comments regarding what might have been a better outcome if Stanley McChrystal had been retained as the commander in Afghanistan in 2010 have to do with expanding or condinuing the war. McChrystal was a JSOC guy, not a conventional Army guy, and probably would have minimized the number of boots on the ground. Like John Paul Vann said in Vietnam in the early 1960's when he was an advisor, "This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane.".
And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.


I thought that the attack on U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, TH, on 12/07/1941 was the primary cause for U.S. entry into WW2.

Is there any reason to believe that a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been a better outcome for the U.S.?
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by irfubar
[quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I don't see the connection that you apparently do.
You don't turn military men and their industrial suppliers loose to do what they will. It will keep us in foreign wars and bankrupt us which is what happened.


DDE supported NATO and established SEATO. The U.S. kept Armies on foreign soil during DDE's 8 years in office, in Europe and in South Korea. The presence of U.S. militrary forces in those places may have kept our enemies from starting, or continuing, broader conflicts.

I don't see how my comments regarding what might have been a better outcome if Stanley McChrystal had been retained as the commander in Afghanistan in 2010 have to do with expanding or condinuing the war. McChrystal was a JSOC guy, not a conventional Army guy, and probably would have minimized the number of boots on the ground. Like John Paul Vann said in Vietnam in the early 1960's when he was an advisor, "This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane.".
And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.


I thought that the attack on U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, TH, on 12/07/1941 was the primary cause for U.S. entry into WW2.

Is there any reason to believe that a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been a better outcome for the U.S.?



the Germans never would have conquered Russia......if we hadnt gotten involved more than likely the nazis and commies would have fought each other to a standstill , substantially weakening both régimes


going back further , if we hadnt gotten into WW1 , nazis or communists might never had existed at all
Originally Posted by sdgunslinger
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
[quote=Hastings][quote=260Remguy][quote=irfubar][quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.


I thought that the attack on U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, TH, on 12/07/1941 was the primary cause for U.S. entry into WW2.

Is there any reason to believe that a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been a better outcome for the U.S.?



the Germans never would have conquered Russia......if we hadnt gotten involved more than likely the nazis and commies would have fought each other to a standstill , substantially weakening both régimes
going back further , if we hadnt gotten into WW1 , nazis or communists might never had existed at all
260Remguy: Why do you think Japan just up and mounted an attack on the huge USA? Reckon the Roosevelt administration goaded them with a blockade and embargo? By the way, Roosevelt fired Admiral James Otto Richardson for pointing out how reckless an idea it was to put our navy fleet out at Pearl Harbor. I can't see any upside that the USA gained by failing to follow George Washington's advice for us to stay out of the affairs of foreign countries. If we hadn't jumped on poor old Spain on a pretext then we wouldn't have owned the Philippines and therefore wouldn't have had as much reason to worry about Jap and Chinese issues. We have always had enough fish to fry on our side of both oceans without looking for more.

As to your question about a Nazi victory, how could that have been worse than a Soviet dominated Europe?
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by sdgunslinger
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
[quote=260Remguy][quote=Hastings][quote=260Remguy][quote=irfubar][quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.


I thought that the attack on U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, TH, on 12/07/1941 was the primary cause for U.S. entry into WW2.

Is there any reason to believe that a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been a better outcome for the U.S.?





As to your question about a Nazi victory, how could that have been worse than a Soviet dominated Europe?


Germany getting the bomb before we did could have been interesting.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by sdgunslinger
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
[quote=Hastings][quote=260Remguy][quote=irfubar][quote=260Remguy]You must have missed Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex?
I And what have we gained from the Spanish-American war until today by having our military outside the continental U.S.? What have we gained by owning Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and whatever islands? What interest did we have vs. the cost of going overseas to fight Europe's battles? Our involvement in World War 2 turned 1/2 the world over to communism.


I thought that the attack on U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, TH, on 12/07/1941 was the primary cause for U.S. entry into WW2.

Is there any reason to believe that a Nazi victory in WW2 would have been a better outcome for the U.S.?



the Germans never would have conquered Russia......if we hadnt gotten involved more than likely the nazis and commies would have fought each other to a standstill , substantially weakening both régimes
going back further , if we hadnt gotten into WW1 , nazis or communists might never had existed at all
260Remguy: Why do you think Japan just up and mounted an attack on the huge USA? Reckon the Roosevelt administration goaded them with a blockade and embargo? By the way, Roosevelt fired Admiral James Otto Richardson for pointing out how reckless an idea it was to put our navy fleet out at Pearl Harbor. I can't see any upside that the USA gained by failing to follow George Washington's advice for us to stay out of the affairs of foreign countries. If we hadn't jumped on poor old Spain on a pretext then we wouldn't have owned the Philippines and therefore wouldn't have had as much reason to worry about Jap and Chinese issues. We have always had enough fish to fry on our side of both oceans without looking for more.

As to your question about a Nazi victory, how could that have been worse than a Soviet dominated Europe?


Maybe FDR suckered the Japanese into attacking us. You can only specufate what might have happened by playing the "what if" game.

As to your question of whether a Nazi dominated Europe would have been worse than a Soviet dominated Europe, it surely would have been worse for the Jews who were still alive in April 1945. The Nazis clutterted their rail network and tied up many thousands of soldier and potential soldier by hunting down Jews and then shipping the to the death camp in order to achieve their final solution. Hitler and Himmler were obcessed with the final solution to the detriment of the German military from a logistical and manpowr perspective. Plus there is also the issue of nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems. Werner Von Braun and the other German rocket scientists with instrumental in putting the U.S. ahead of the Soviets in the space race. It seems to me that the U.S. would have been in a position of great danger if the Nazis had won WW2. Maybe no a lot more danager than we have been from the Soviets and Russia, but nobody knows what Hitler would have done if he had had nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems.
There are an endless supply of alternate scenarios and what ifs. I am an isolationist and a hard money believer but that ship sailed a long time ago. It seems to me that we would have been eons ahead had we stopped our acquisitions with Alaska and let Europe and Asia go their way except for trading with them. Our intervention in World War 1 most certainly led to what is now known as WW-2. Our foreign military adventures and social programs financed by the same bankers that bankrolled both sides has put us in bankruptcy and in a position to be ruled by tyranny.
© 24hourcampfire