[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia: The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington
Source: Fred On Everything
URL Source: http://fredoneverything.org/hillary ... nd-i-have-lived-in-washington/
Published: Aug 11, 2016
Author: Fred Reed
Post Date: 2016-08-11 21:32:09 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 3939
Comments: 60

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 an ver 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.


Found this while on another site. Never heard of this guy before. Interesting take on war with Russia. I doubt Shitlerly would understand this.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

#1. To: Stoner (#0) (Edited)

When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country.

During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose.

rlk  posted on  2016-08-11   21:58:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: rlk (#1)

" During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose. "

Exactly !

Stoner  posted on  2016-08-12   0:25:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Stoner (#3)

" During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose. "

Exactly !

It annoys me to this day when people talk about how we lost Vietnam. The US left in in 73 WITH A VICTORY -- a real victory.

Then, 2 years later, the Democrats here gave the commies the political victory they so craved.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-12   0:37:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: no gnu taxes (#4)

It annoys me to this day when people talk about how we lost Vietnam. The US left in in 73 WITH A VICTORY -- a real victory.

Then, 2 years later, the Democrats here gave the commies the political victory they so craved.

We lost the war. A Republican was President when the North overran the South.

We fought it stupidly, took bad casualties, were unable to set up a government capable of defending itself.

We lost. That's what defeat looks like: your enemy gets all of his objectives, you lose everything you fought for and all of your sacrifice was in vain. That is defeat.

It doesn't matter that we "won all the battles". The Russians won all the battles in Afghanistan too. Didn't matter. They lost the war. So did we.

And we're losing the war in Afghanistan right now too, just like we lost Vietnam, and just like the Russians lost Afghanistan before us, for exactly the same reasons.

We overestimated our abilities, we overcommitted, we bit off more than we could choose, and we lost. And in the process we killed 55,000 of our own countrymen, crippled another quarter million Americans for life, and imposed a trillion dollar debt on ourselves - for nothing.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-12   8:06:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

We lost the war. A Republican was President when the North overran the South.

We left Vietnam with the caveat that if NV showed aggression, we'd resume bombing the shit out of them again.

Ford begged Congress to provide funding to stop the invasion of the North, and they refused.

Remember the Case-Church amendment? It was passed by a veto proof majority. It prohibited the US from taking any military action to stop NV. The fucking Democrats WANTED the communists to prevail.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-12   8:23:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13 (#9)

Ford begged Congress to provide funding to stop the invasion of the North, and they refused.

They were stopping North for several years. There is such thing as cutting losses and accepting defeat - it is not a shame.

America did not need Vietnam same way as French did not. The latter made a stable South with Diem at the top.

See the movie "Quiet American".

A Pole  posted on  2016-08-12   13:23:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A Pole (#19)

There is such thing as cutting losses and accepting defeat - it is not a shame.

Maybe somebody should have told that to the SV who were tortured and murdered or had to take to the high seas on makeshift rafts after the Democrats reneged on our promises.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   7:57:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: no gnu taxes (#26)

Maybe somebody should have told that to the SV who were tortured and murdered or had to take to the high seas on makeshift rafts after the Democrats reneged on our promises.

So, to be clear, it was the DEMOCRATS fault that Saigon fell, even though the White House and the Supreme Court were both in the hands of the Republicans.

And this was because the Democrats were in control of Congress.

That's the assertion.

Explain to me, then, how everything that Obama has done is not the Republicans' fault, considering that the Republicans control Congress, and the Supreme Court to boot.

The Republicans have greater control over our government than the Democrats did in Nixon and Ford's day, and yet Obama advances across the board.

That is because the Obama policies are really the polices of the Republicans, right?

Ford was President and the Supreme Court was Republican when Saigon fell. Just the Democrat control of Congress is sufficient to shift blame.

By those standards, Obama is blameless, for the Republicans control Congress and have controlled the Supreme Court throughout his Presidency.

Right?

Or does the standard of blame shift so that it always rests on Democrats?

That's what partisans always do. It's why they don't have a lot of credibility. It's always the other guy's fault.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   8:02:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)

So, to be clear, it was the DEMOCRATS fault that Saigon fell, even though the White House and the Supreme Court were both in the hands of the Republicans.

We PROMISED we would not allow NV to take action. It wouldn't have even been that hard to prevent it either. Send a number of B-52s to turn Hanoi into a parking lot, and there is no way an invasion would have been conducted.

The Democrats had veto proof majorities in the House and Senate. Hell, even the Republicans were pretty much Democrats.

The Democrats wanted to say the US lost. They rejoiced in that mantra. It seems to be what you doing too.

Explain to me, then, how everything that Obama has done is not the Republicans' fault,

The current GOP does not have a veto proof majority.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   8:12:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: no gnu taxes (#29)

The Democrats wanted to say the US lost. They rejoiced in that mantra. It seems to be what you doing too.

I don't rejoice in it. But yes, when the US goes into major wars without the necessary constitutional declaration of war that we need to bind our laws, our private contracts and our civil society to the specific national security and censorship and rationing and taxation and mobilization rules of wartime, then it is important that the US lose the police action.

It is important that the United States be punished with defeat every time we go to war without formally declaring it, formally binding the people to total war, formally binding the economy to 90% taxation, massive mobilization, and censorship to maintain morale.

War is a bloody and terrible thing, and it's supposed to be hard to do it. It's supposed to require enough support of the people to require Congress to declare it. To win modern war means that the profit-seeking activity of peacetime must stop, and all excess of private profit beyond regular subsistence needs to go into the war effort, to massively mobilize and win the thing. That way fewer people die and fewer people are crippled.

America has pretended that we can have a full throttle private profit-seeking capitalist economy, with accumulation of wealth and regular uncensored life, AND at the same time send professional troops over to die and be killed.

When we have done it, and it's all we have done since 1945, we always lose. We always will. It is very important to rub Americans' noses in their defeats and disasters, again and again and again, so that they will SEE the insanity and stupidity of our approach to police actions, and so that we will understand that we're not great enough, strong enough, or good enough at war to actually WIN anything unless we go all out. Then (and only then) do we win.

We lost Korea. We lost Vietnam,. We lost Iraq. We're in the process of losing Afghanistan. We "won" Kosovo...meaning we established a Muslim state in Europe - so, it was an easy win, because we fought FOR evil that time. We lost. And we're going to keep on losing.

And whenever we enter into police actiona instead of declaring wars, we always will lose, and that's a good thing. Because it would be terrible if America got away with winning wars on the cheap. We engage in a lot of them, and if we actually won and got advantage out of them, we'd engage in even more police actions.

As it is, though, we always lose and spend a fortune, and have "wounded warriors" and terrible political turmoil internally. And this is the just punishment of an arrogant nation that does not even follow its own Constitution, which requires a declaration of war.

Instead, we just let Presidents commit us to mass murder on executive orders, and then we always get our asses handed to us in the end, with grand strategic debacles - like Vietnam, or Iraq - or endless deployment, expense and drain, for nothing, as in Korea, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

We're trying to have our way in the Ukraine. We were wrong from the beginning. Putin has been right all along there. We are frustrated and not winning. And that's good.

Aggressive imperialism is evil, and when we do it, it's good that we lose. That SHOULD teach us the lesson that we were stupid to get involved in it in the first place.

When Americans want to pretend we WON wars that we lost, that's just trying to save face, which ends up just giving cover for the same aggressive morons to do it AGAIN, and AGAIN.

We had our ass handed to us in Vietnam, and the whole world knows we lost. We propped up a government, fought for almost a decade, lost 55,000 and had a quarter million crippled, went into debt over a trillion dollars, all to abjectly lose everything. The Soviet Union got the benefit of our naval base at Cam Rahn Bay. Because we were defeated. Like Napoleon at Waterloo. Didn't matter that he won almost all the battles before that, did it? The image of Vietnam is of people hanging onto the skids of the last helicopter out of Saigon, as the last Americans fled for their lives with their tail between their legs.

We got whomped.

We lost it all.

We should not have been there in the first place.

If we were going to be there, we needed to declare war.

If we were going to fight the wrong fight, against the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, then at very least we needed to declare and spend the money and lose the profit and accept the restrictions on our own liberties necessary to win.

We didn't. So we lost. And it's good that we did. Teach us a lesson. Maybe. If we'll learn it.

We didn't learn it. Which is why we went into Iraq and lost it to the Iranians in the end. And why we followed the USSR into Afghanistan, where we're just waiting to get exhausted enough to retreat, defeated, and let the country go back to the Taliban who sheltered Bin Laden.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   12:00:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

Did the Soviet Union fall or did it not?

We won.

The only thing we lost is the promise to protect the SV people.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   12:15:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: no gnu taxes (#35)

Did the Soviet Union fall or did it not?

We won.

We weren't fighting the Soviet Union, we were fighting the North Vietnamese, and many South Vietnamese. The Vietnamese drove us out of their country, and are still ruling it. The Vietnamese won the Vietnam war, and the Americans lost it.

The Vietnam war, like Korea, was more of a proxy war with Communist China than with the Soviet Union. The Chinese fought us to a draw in Korea. And they achieved their objectives in Vietnam.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   23:00:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

We weren't fighting the Soviet Union,

Yes we were. That was the whole point of the war.

and many South Vietnamese

Those people were very much all gone by 1968.

Tell the boat people how much they wanted the Soviets and NVA to win.

The Vietnamese drove us out of their country

They absolutely did not. We left after the linebacker operations that showed what we could do to them. We left of our own free will. Nixon did prevail.

Of course you and the Democrats want to paint us as the losers. How shameful of you.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-15   22:27:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: no gnu taxes (#54)

Yeah, and the Soviets didn't lose in Afghanistan either.

When your enemies conquer the country you've wrecked a third of a million of your own people's lives, and spent ten years struggling before the whole world to hold onto, and spent a trillion dollars doing it, you have lost.

No propaganda can reverse the reality.

Woulda shoulda coulda is backing and filling.

The last helicopter out of Saigon had people hanging off the skids to escape an enemy that asserted his will and defeated ours.

If one looks at 1940, Germany beat France and Britain, and in 1941, Germany beat the USSR, overran everything, destroyed whatever resisted them. But that didn't last, did it. In 1945 they lost their capital and their government. Doesn't matter how many victories they had before that. They lost.

Same thing with us in Vietnam. The American people were not longer willing to fight that war. Our will had been broken. Vietnam fell, and the Americans did not return to fight, because there was no political will to do so.

We lost. The enemy won. We should admit it, because by admitting it we learn that military success is not enough. We defeated the Iraqi army and Saddam...only to turn Iraq into an Iranian satellite. That was not a win.

Napoleon crushed the Russian Army and slept in the Kremlin. Did he win? No. The final outcome of the war determines who won. Napoleon beat everybody time and time and time again. Nobody could stand up to him. But in the end, he was deposed. He lost. He lost because the French people were no longer willing to follow him into more ruinous war.

The same is true of the Americans in Vietnam. We won almost all of the battles, if "winning" is defined as holding onto the ground over which we fought. And after 10 years of "winning" our people were exhausted, protesting, having riots, and no longer willing to cash the checks that our arrogant leaders were writing. So the political will crystallized to end it. We did. The enemy attacked. The Americans did not come because the American people, expressing themselves through their democratically elected Congress, did not LET US come. The people decided. And they decided that, regardless of the decisions of leaders, we were not going to continue to throw good lives away, and good money after bad.

We chose to lose, because to lose it now was better than to go on losing lives and money endlessly in a third world shithole.

Our aura of invincibility was breached. The whole world saw us fly out with survivors clinging to the helicopter skids.

We lost. And we need to learn the lessons of our defeat.

Persuading ourselves that somehow we won, as you would do. is delusional. It's delusional and will lead (and actually has already led) to us making the same stupid mistakes again. We're doing it again in Afghaistan. Eventually we will leave and the Taliban will still be in charge. We have already been defeated in Afghanistan and we can't hold it. The only question is how long we want the defeat to go on, at the cost of American lives, limbs and money we don't have.

We broke Iraq and handed it over to the Iranians. This was a short term military "win", followed by a catastrophic strategic loss that leaves us weaker than we were before, and without thousands of our fellow Americans, tens of thousands of their limbs, and another trillion dollars, thrown away for what?

We're still in Kosovo, so I guess we "won" that. We successfully carved a Muslim state out of Serbia, and are now protecting it.

We're still in Korea.

All of this adds up to trillions. We didn't defeat the USSR in the field and drive them off defeated. We caused them to spend themselves until their economy broke.

We had more money than they did to start, but we've burnt through that ourselves. We're still fighting the Cold War, and our economy is swooning.

So, the USSR failed FIRST. But we are continuing down the same imperial path they dead, and destined to fail SECOND. In the end, behave like they did and like we did and still are, and both sides lose.

We need to stop it and rethink. That can happen with men like me, who think. With men like you, who pretend that defeats were victories, we can only continue to stagger down the path to eventual national bankruptcy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-16   7:09:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

Saigon fell 2 years after we were gone.

The SV wished we were still there. It wasn't freedom fighters in SV rising against us. The SV were slaughtered by the Communists after the Democrats reneged on the withdrawal promises.

This was a communist backed massive invasion from NV that the communists knew the Democrats would do nothing to stop.

It would have been easy to stop and wouldn't have required any troops on the ground. The Democrats wanted the communists to win (and apparently you too).

These are the same people who wanted a world wide nuclear freeze after the Soviets deployed medium range nuclear missiles aimed at Europe. The Soviet missiles would have been "frozen" in place with no counter action from the West. Luckily Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl were able to put a stop to these lunatics.

It wasn't America that lost, it was the Democrats assuring a SV (and Cambodian) loss in the aftermath of Watergate.

And they didn't give one fuck about the millions murdered by the Communists after that.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-16   7:47:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 56.

#57. To: no gnu taxes (#56)

It wasn't America that lost, it was the Democrats

The Congress of the United States IS America. The Democrats had a crushing majority in Congress because the crushing majority of American people VOTED FOR THEM. They represented America, because they were elected to do so.

America wanted out of Vietnam, so they put Democrat supermajorities in there to oppose the war.

When Congress rejected a US return to Vietnam, that WAS the American people speaking, in supermajority numbers.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-16 10:05:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com