The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia
The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
T14

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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.

ORDER IT NOW

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.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 284 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don’t need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that ” Washington ” did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Drunken and drug-addled? Perhaps, but his essay is not. Not even at probability of .001.
    , @Divine Right
    "If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that ” Washington ” did not push the South into Civil War"

    Of course not. It's not like Washington continued to maintain a military base housing their soldiers in someone else's country and refused to remove them when asked to or anything - the kind of thing that might actually start a war.

    , @Brohemius
    This "Mexican" fought as a Marine in Vietnam. And, Washington did push us into the Civil War. At that point you should have quit. But you're probably a fern bar Clausewitz, so facts and logic are wasted on you.
    , @Stebbing Heuer

    Germany did not start World War I.
     
    Of course not. It's not like the Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia, Russia's ally, or invaded Belgium in order to take Paris - the kind of things that might actually start a war.
    , @annamaria
    "We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand... They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia? ...the war is 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."

    The best overview of the neocon (ziocon) crowd!!!
    , @Hibernian
    Did you think "Washington" meant George Washington, rather than the city?
    , @Ace
    Helpful hint: it's quite acceptable to take someone to task over facts or logic without resorting to invective that makes you look like a small man.
    , @Thinking Old Man
    Yes, Germany did not start WW I. Read Christopher Clark's work "The Sleepwalkers" and, if possible, two interesting German publications: Hans Fenske's "Der Anfang vom Ende des alten Europa" (The beginning of the end of Old Europe) and "Als Deutschland Großmacht war" (When Germany was a great Power) by Bruno Bandulet.

    They make fascinating reading, challenging long-standing fallacies about German war guilt. However, the whole ugly truth is unlikely to come out as long as the acts pertaining to the run-up to August 1914 in Paris, London, Belgrade and (last but not least) in Moscow/Petersburg remain sealed...for reasons which might be very obvious.

    In believe WW I was stared by Germany's great friends in London, to ged rid of this pesky competitor in world trade. France wanted to get Alsace and Lorraine back. The fact that these territories had been part of Germany until the 17th century, when the y were conquered by France, was conveniently forgotten in Paris.

    I, as a German, would rather believe in the virginity of an old dockside wh*re than in the good will of a non-German power towards Germany. Incitatus is a case in point.

    Somebody in Germany said: The Anglo-Saxons or ISIS - morally, that's six of one and half a dozen of the other...

    Thank you, and good night.

    , @Hrw-500
    We could wonder how WWI would had been different if King Alexander I of Serbia wasn't assasinated, he was more pro-German than his successor or what if there was no "Entente Cordiale" between the UK and France?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/hillary-trump-and-war-with-russia/#comment-1525774
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. This can’t be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah’s Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR

    This can’t be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah’s Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.
     

    The above was posted by The Anti-Gnostic.
    I agree 100%.
    , @Corvinus
    "Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable."

    It's not 0nly unthinkable, it's also highly improbable. Just another tinfoil conspiracy theory regarding certain politicians who are itching to take out Russia.

    "It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange."

    Well, would not this armageddon experience you so deeply are moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?
    , @Adolf Verloc
    Absolutely true. No sane person has ever believed that NATO could hold off Russia, with or without the Warsaw Pact, without resorting to nuclear weapons. A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.
    , @Connecticut Famer
    I would like to think that in the event HRC is elected, that adults will take her into the back room and reason with her, reminding her that Mother Russia has seven thousand reasons--all nuclear tipped and many with our name on them--why it would be in everyone's interest that we make nice-nice with Russia . I would like to think that she will listen to reason. I would like to think this...but am not counting on it.
    , @Galearis
    Just a correction. Russia had a reputation for making second class tanks? The T-34, up gunned version, was considered the best tank of WW2. The worst was either the best Japanese versions or the American Sherman. The German, had several that were as good as the best Russia ones.

    The media crimes in the US are getting so bad that I hesitate to read anything American - and do not buy anything made in the USA. I will not support the empire in any way.

    FWIW,
    L.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Your warning is not out of place, Fred. However, the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them.

    Of course there is the danger of them getting used. Things do have a way of getting out of hand on occasion.

    But it does not strike me as particularly credible that the American war machine really wants a serious confrontation with a nuclear armed adversary. Because that would involve them, personally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them."
    The paper warns implicitly that unsupervised imbeciles could use armaments at hand because the imbeciles' career interests and petty thinking would not allow them to realize the scale of consequences.
    , @anti_republocrat
    The ABM installations in Romania and elsewhere in E. Europe are capable of being re-purposed to offensive capability through programming. This would put Moscow within 5 minutes of nuclear destruction. Thus, the mere placement of weapons constitutes their use.
    , @Anonymous
    It is a matter of faith in the USA that Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union by slapping them in the face with his giant, Star Wars sized MX strapon dildo, while what really destroyed the USSR was smuggled pirated videocassettes of Dallas, Dynasty, and Baywatch. The Soviets believed those to be documentaries of life under capitalism, and they thought all they had to do was ditch socialism and the western world would embrace them in capitalist brotherhood.Instead, the former Soviet states were raped.

    Why is this important? Because morons like Clinton (and about 99% of the "exceptional" US population) believe as an article of faith that the Russians are pushovers, and all that is required to beat them is to lean on them a little. If at first the Russians do not give up, then retarded Americans will believe they are just not leaning hard enough, and will escalate the pressure on Russia. Because they are stupid, escalation is the only foreign policy tool that the Americans have.

    This is problematic because the Russians look at 1991 and think "Never again!" America is playing atomic chicken against an opponent that they believe will flinch, but that opponent will not even blink.This is bad news.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. turtle says:

    B61 Mod 12

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

    >Critics say that a more accurate and less destructive nuclear weapon would make leaders less cautious about deploying it

    Bogged down in Russia…
    Nukes to the rescue?

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    NATO is not likely to get far enough to even get bogged down, and if they did Russian doctrine calls for tactical nukes....Either way, a desperate and unhinged politician like Hillary might be tempted to blow up the world and retire to her bunker...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Rehmat says:

    The so-called 50-year Cold War proved beyond doubt that American and Russian war rhetoric were for public consumption only. Both are the remaining Western colonialist powers and their ‘crying wolf’ is to protect their sphere of interest. Five-year-old Syrian bloodshed is the living proof of that strategy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/28/american-jewish-envoy-to-stop-war-in-syria/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kay Gibi
    You made a lot of great points. By all means do continue. People need to wake up NOW before it's too late and commenters vomiting Pentagon propaganda should rethink making silly comments about Putin and Russia. Take the time to learn about who they are telling you to hate. Your lives literally depend on it.

    Hillary promoted plenty of wars as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya with the highest Human Development Rate in all of Africa about to help the rest of Africa free themselves from colonialist oppression. Couldn't have that could we? Now it is a terrorist hell.

    If that wasn't bad enough, she sent weapons and terrorists to Syria to do the same thing there, getting the US ambassador killed in the process.

    And she was the one who agitated horny Bill into destroying Yugoslavia.

    She is unfit physically and mentally for the job. She has major anger problems. Seek and you shall find her crimes...a lying liar that lies.

    Do you want this spastic wacko's finger on the nuclear trigger? She doesn't believe in settling issues with diplomacy, but with war and the world will get it if she is elected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    Drunken and drug-addled? Perhaps, but his essay is not. Not even at probability of .001.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Fred can often cause me cerebral irritation and muck up my blood pressure but in this case he is SPOT ON.
    Hilary and her vile, paper mache myrmidon may not intend war with Russia/China but their arrogant, cavalier, reckless, callous pursuit of regime change against Russia is FRAUGHT with danger. This is the point Fred makes: horrendous consequences have repeatedly followed the actions of stupid, arrogant leaders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Bravo! This is an excellent piece of work. More like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    “If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that ” Washington ” did not push the South into Civil War”

    Of course not. It’s not like Washington continued to maintain a military base housing their soldiers in someone else’s country and refused to remove them when asked to or anything – the kind of thing that might actually start a war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anti_republocrat
    Fort Sumter was federal property. According to the Constitution then in force, state authorities had no right to demand its surrender. It was not interfering with shipping in or out of Charleston, but Southern batteries had already fired on a supply ship bringing supplies to Sumter, causing it to turn back. There was thus no need for Beauregard to fire on the fort. Had he not done so, Sumter would still have been forced to surrender due to lack of supplies, and it is entirely possible there would have been a negotiated settlement with the 7 states that had seceded at that point. Several border states, including Virginia, might not have seceded.

    Such a result was not acceptable to secessionists, as the Confederacy would have been in a weak position regarding any future conflicts regarding western territories. They wanted all slave states to secede, so the issue was forced by firing on Sumter.

    The South started the Civil War. Deal with it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. It looks kind of like a low quality copy of the M1A1 (1980). It has metal-ceramic armor, hence the blocky-ness. So they have caught up to what we had in 1980. Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Excellent article Fred,

    I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 ... and with that example no more need be said.

    Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory ... rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

    There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war ... and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

    Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

    I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled "Operation GLASS" as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary's hand on the red button? ... a fourth grade of insanity.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    The German high command made similar observations about Soviet armor just before Kursk. The USA's WW II main battle tank, the Sherman, was grotesquely outclassed by just about any tank the Germans fielded. Somehow or other that overwhelming German technical advantage didn't play out so well for the Germans.

    The Russian philosophy is build them tough, easily sustainable, with more firepower than the enemy, and in overwhelming numbers; then provide enormous amounts of spare parts and logistic and maintenance support. This philosophy seems to work rather well.
    , @Avery
    { Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.}

    [Russia’s New Mega-Missile Stuns the Globe]
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/russia-s-new-mega-missile-stuns-the-globe.html


    {On Oct. 7, Russian warships in the Caspian Sea fired 26 high-tech cruise missiles at rebel targets in Syria—a staggering 1,000 miles away.}
    {What’s particularly striking is that Moscow has been able to build this long-range naval strike capability with much smaller vessels than anyone thought possible. In the U.S. Navy, large destroyers, cruisers, and submarines carry Tomahawk cruise missiles—and those vessels are typically at least 500 feet long and displace as many as 9,000 tons of water.

    The four brand-new warships that launched the SS-N-30s were much, much smaller—ranging in length from 200 to 330 feet and displacing no more than 1,500 tons of water. “Small ships, big firepower,” Wertheim commented.}


    Yep, sure looks like Russians obtained that technology from reverse-engineering and espionage. Since nobody else on Earth has that, they must have stolen it from Martians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Jason Liu says:

    What cause do you think would lead America into war with Russia, though? Public opinions sounds very much against any future interventionism or “humanitarian expeditions”.

    The only reason I can think of is an America that’s threatened by Russia’s expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies, but even then I don’t think the average person has the stomach for war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...Russia’s expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies..."
    Could you enlighten the readers on how a country can expand nationalism? And why you call the obvious capitalist path, chosen by Russian federation, the "authoritarian ideology?" And the last Q: what countries have been suffering from "Russia’s expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies?" Perhaps you have Syria in mind, but Russian are there on the invitation of Syrian government, unlike the "moderate" terrorists supported by the US/EU/Golf monarchies. (Have you noticed that after Russians came to Syria, ISIS finally has problems?) Or you wanted to tell us something about Saakishvilli adventure in Ossetia? (What is his current citizenship, btw?) Or maybe you had something new to tell about the neo-Nazi-infested Kiev government supported by the US State Dept. on the advice of the leading ziocons? (See the Kagans' clan - and do not forget to google an Israeli citizen Kolomojsky and his Azov battalion famous for the Odessa auto da fe).
    , @Ace
    So if Norwegians love their country they are a threat to world peace?

    How does nationalism = lebensraum?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. 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.

    The problem is, are voters going to realize this? Hillary is doing her best to paint Trump as the crazy warmonger. And however poorly it squares with the historical record, Republicans have a reputation as the party of war, Democrats as the party of peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    The Dims the party of Peace? Really? Read up on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Actually, the Iraq War, Libyan War, Syrian War(via terrorist proxy), and Ukraine War(via coup proxy) were great successes for the GLOB empire.

    The fact that they were failures is success in the eyes of the Zio-GLOB. Those Muslim nations are crippled for a long long time and, like Humpty Dumpty, may never put together again.

    Neocons love it!!

    Indeed, if Iraq had turned into a successful democracy, it might become yet another threat and challenge to Israel. But in ruins, it is just a sad case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    I guess you didn't know Iran is 92% Muslim state and had been putting both the US and Israel on panic since 1979.

    In May 2016 Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei assured the visiting Hamas delegate that no matter who lead the Islamic regime in Iran, the support for Palestinian resistance against the Zionist entity will remain unshakeable because defending Palestinian cause is like defending Islam which is duty of every Muslim on earth.

    "The large-scale war which is currently underway in the region is the continuation of a war that started against the Islamic Republic of Iran 37 years ago and in this confrontation the issue of Palestine is the main and pivotal issue; the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue the duty of supporting Palestine as it has done in the past,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/02/khamenei-defending-palestine-is-defending-islam/
    , @annamaria
    "The fact that they were failures is success in the eyes of the Zio-GLOB."
    Unfortunately true. These arrogant fools do not want to think about the consequences of implementation of Yinon plan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Tanks are not important. It’s the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US’s air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy…. because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Tanks are not important. It’s the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage."
     
    Yep, that's why all the interdictions in MENA are going so swimmingly. More tellingly, the US has the tools for air superiority but it does not have the numbers to project it as broadly and as sustained as Hillary and the Neocons would like to think they can.

    What will most assuredly happen is a few exoatmospheric nuclear detonations above The Homeland so that the vast majority of us will lose our will to fight as we lose the use of our i-Toys and other conveniences of life via EMP. They won't even have to nuke our cities ... in fact, that would be counterproductive. The US would be fighting one, maybe two major enemies whose people live much closer to the dirt, so taking out their infrastructure with EMP will roll off their backs, and nuking their cities in response to a simple EMP attack will be the biggest act of mass murder in history.

    But hey, when Hillary is already arguably a war criminal, what difference will a few hundred milion more lives make at that point.
    , @Begemot
    DFS - If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam? Why is the war in Afghanistan still sputtering on? The opposition has no air force at all. Why is ISIS still in business (assuming USA is serious about knocking out ISIS)? No ISIS air force. Air power is important in war and can produce strong, even decisive effects, but it doesn't win wars by itself. This delusional idea has been refuted by historical experience, but it persists, as you demonstrate. It takes men on the ground to control the ground. Air power is transient. When it leaves the battle area, the men on the ground resume what they were doing.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    You may be overestimating American air superiority. The latest Russian Sukhoi fighters are quite good and the S-400 air defense system is formidable. The Russian Air Force would be close to its bases and over its own territory while American forces would be dangling at the end of extended lines of communication. Not as easy a victory as your post makes it out to be.
    , @Pat the Rat
    Air power has been decisive. I think it is going to fail now unless you are talking missiles.

    If the Russian air defences are as good as they claim to be, the birds will be blown out of the sky and the carriers will be sunk.

    If air defence improves it may well be that armies and tanks will be as important as they ever were in the past.

    I do think America, Australia and UK are extremely vulnerable to underwater missile technology that was in the news last year, that looks impossible to defend against.
    , @Anonymous
    One word regarding the 'air war'. S400.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    If I even doubted that you are a Jewish woman, I don't now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. This is the crux of the campaign: the Clintons’ lunacy threaten our survival. The latest gin up of anti-Russianism to distract attention from the fact the wikileaks proved that the harpy had gained her nomination by fraud is frightening in its implications. Survival “trumps’ political correctness every time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The more serious consequence of the wikileaks was the divulgence of facts related to Clinton Foundation -- evidences of foreign influence on Clinton' actions that were the payback for large donations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Fred is just having fun with his readers. His primary objective is to soften the audience towards open borders with Mexico.

    This garbage is typical of Fred the turncoat.

    Not your concern, Fred. Just stay in Mexico and let Americans deal with American problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brohemius
    I lived in Washington, D.C., from '80 to '84, when Fred was writing for the brand new Washington Times. I worked for the Feds for 14 years, and it is easy to see why Fred would want to get the hell outta Dodge. D.C. is the biggest concentration of criminals on the face of the Earth. And their actions affect everyone in the U.S.A. Fred merely exercised his God-given right to escape tyranny.
    All you are doing is advertising your stupidity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    “Tanks are not important. It’s the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.”

    Yep, that’s why all the interdictions in MENA are going so swimmingly. More tellingly, the US has the tools for air superiority but it does not have the numbers to project it as broadly and as sustained as Hillary and the Neocons would like to think they can.

    What will most assuredly happen is a few exoatmospheric nuclear detonations above The Homeland so that the vast majority of us will lose our will to fight as we lose the use of our i-Toys and other conveniences of life via EMP. They won’t even have to nuke our cities … in fact, that would be counterproductive. The US would be fighting one, maybe two major enemies whose people live much closer to the dirt, so taking out their infrastructure with EMP will roll off their backs, and nuking their cities in response to a simple EMP attack will be the biggest act of mass murder in history.

    But hey, when Hillary is already arguably a war criminal, what difference will a few hundred milion more lives make at that point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    I agree about (the lack of) US effectiveness in MEA. Not impressive. Indeed, performance is so bad that it spawns rumors and conspiracy theories that the US is/must be on the side of ISIS. And we are also losing the war in Afghanistan against guerilla bands of goat herders.

    With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years. Rack up the two orders of battle and the lack of effectiveness on the part of the coalition is hard to understand.

    Before their operation in Syria, Hussein Obama labeled Russia a second-rate regional power. After their operation in Syria, he labeled it a world power with the second most effective military in the world. I would not want to try to find out who was really first and who was really second.
    , @Kyle
    I agree air power is futile when every advanced nation has smart missile technology, nukes, and emp. 1 well placed tomahawk with shaped charge sinks a carrier.
    We would never invade Russia, and Russia would never attack us. But imagine if we got into a Vietnam situation in Ukraine. "Ukraine rebels" with a few well placed misses could massacre ground troops, shoot down our fighter jets, and possibly take out a carrier.
    Plus our frogmen wouldn't stand a chance against their attack dolphins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat.

    You say that like it’s a Bad Thing? It may well be that an emphatic K.O. and even Kremlin-directed regime change is the only way Americans will get the insatiable neocon monkeys off their backs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @Rex Little

    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.
     
    The problem is, are voters going to realize this? Hillary is doing her best to paint Trump as the crazy warmonger. And however poorly it squares with the historical record, Republicans have a reputation as the party of war, Democrats as the party of peace.

    The Dims the party of Peace? Really? Read up on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rex Little
    Read what I actually said. The Dems have the popular image as the party of peace, but that doesn't match the historical reality (for exactly the reasons you listed).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. TheJester says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    It looks kind of like a low quality copy of the M1A1 (1980). It has metal-ceramic armor, hence the blocky-ness. So they have caught up to what we had in 1980. Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.

    Excellent article Fred,

    I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 … and with that example no more need be said.

    Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory … rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

    There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war … and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

    Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

    I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled “Operation GLASS” as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary’s hand on the red button? … a fourth grade of insanity.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. . . . Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. . . ."

    That's the essence of it. Russians build comparatively uncomplicated weapons that bear up, and are easy to use, under battle conditions. American weaponry is often gold-plated, bells-and-whistles stuff.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    AK-47

     

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.


    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits.

     

    More like weapons are designed by Western corporations, the technology stolen by espionage, and lower quality copies are designed to accomodate their more primitive manufacturing infrastructure.
    , @Kay Gibi
    I might add one more Russian doctrine: shut the lights off. Disable!

    A nice non-violent response to incursions. See USS Donald Duck (I mean Cook).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @The Anti-Gnostic
    This can't be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah's Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn't matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    This can’t be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah’s Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    The above was posted by The Anti-Gnostic.
    I agree 100%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    I totally concur. Thank you again, Fred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Quartermaster
    The Dims the party of Peace? Really? Read up on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

    Read what I actually said. The Dems have the popular image as the party of peace, but that doesn’t match the historical reality (for exactly the reasons you listed).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. TheJester says:
    @The Alarmist

    "Tanks are not important. It’s the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage."
     
    Yep, that's why all the interdictions in MENA are going so swimmingly. More tellingly, the US has the tools for air superiority but it does not have the numbers to project it as broadly and as sustained as Hillary and the Neocons would like to think they can.

    What will most assuredly happen is a few exoatmospheric nuclear detonations above The Homeland so that the vast majority of us will lose our will to fight as we lose the use of our i-Toys and other conveniences of life via EMP. They won't even have to nuke our cities ... in fact, that would be counterproductive. The US would be fighting one, maybe two major enemies whose people live much closer to the dirt, so taking out their infrastructure with EMP will roll off their backs, and nuking their cities in response to a simple EMP attack will be the biggest act of mass murder in history.

    But hey, when Hillary is already arguably a war criminal, what difference will a few hundred milion more lives make at that point.

    I agree about (the lack of) US effectiveness in MEA. Not impressive. Indeed, performance is so bad that it spawns rumors and conspiracy theories that the US is/must be on the side of ISIS. And we are also losing the war in Afghanistan against guerilla bands of goat herders.

    With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years. Rack up the two orders of battle and the lack of effectiveness on the part of the coalition is hard to understand.

    Before their operation in Syria, Hussein Obama labeled Russia a second-rate regional power. After their operation in Syria, he labeled it a world power with the second most effective military in the world. I would not want to try to find out who was really first and who was really second.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chet Roman
    "With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years."

    While I agree with the statement, I just don't think the U.S. poor performance against ISIS was an example of lack of capability. The U.S. has been using ISIS against Assad in the same way they used the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan. A good example are the miles long convoys of oil tankers loaded with stolen Syrian oil being driven to Turkey so Erdogan's son can sell the oil on the black market. The stolen oil was a major source of funding for ISIS. The U.S., Turkey and Nato forces all knew about the oil being stolen and that it funded ISIS and they could have easily bombed the convoys but did nothing until Russia started to bomb them. Only then was the U.S. shamed into face saving action.
    , @TheJester
    Agree. I've spent some time in the books boning up on the history of Al-Qaeda. As you say, it started as a somewhat too-clever (which means stupid) move on the part of the CIA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against, first, the Soviets in Afghanistan and, second, an attack on the Soviet motherland via the Islamic-majority republics in the southern Soviet Union.

    The insanity! Sources relate that while the US was fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it was at the same time ferrying Al-Qaeda jihadists into the southern republics of what used to be the Soviet Union and further north into the republics that are still part of Russia. I guess, as in Syria today, there are good terrorists and bad terrorists ... and it is very often hard to tell the difference. Indeed, the lists might change from day-to-day.

    In their typical shortsighted manner, the CIA (in what is almost always the case) failed to anticipate "blowback" and/or the general consequences of "letting the genie out of the bottle".

    US foreign policy is singularly responsible for spreading Wahhabi fundamentalism throughout the Middle East; the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria ... and the potential destruction of Western European civilization via massive immigration from the Islamic MENA states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    This can't be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah's Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn't matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    “Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable.”

    It’s not 0nly unthinkable, it’s also highly improbable. Just another tinfoil conspiracy theory regarding certain politicians who are itching to take out Russia.

    “It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.”

    Well, would not this armageddon experience you so deeply are moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Go piss on somebody else's leg you fool.
    , @sayless
    Would not this Armageddon experience you are so deeply moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    One can only hope.
    It's an ill wind that blows no good.
    Every cloud has a silver lining.

    , @Stonehands
    God is not mocked you leftist retard.
    , @josh
    I can't help by wonder if people like this are being paid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.”

    Perhaps the author is giving too credit to Kaiser Wilhelm II . The Great War I was not motivated only by the arrogance of the German monarch. On the other side was the French desire for revenge for the loss of Alsace- Lorraine, and the pathological fear of the British from a loss of its world hegemony. since 1870 , after the unification of Germany , british writers have forgotten that the Hohenzollern had been allies of the British against the Bourbons and Napoleon , and began to fill people’s heads with fantasies about a German bogeyman anxious to invade and destroy the poor Brittania . Even if Bismark had stayed longer in power , it would be difficult to avoid the Anglo-French desire for retaliation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
    I cannot agree with the comments made about Kaiser Wilhelm in regards for his desire for war.

    To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.

    Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it as John Keegan describes in his excellent one volume history on the matter.

    The kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but of respect for English naval capabilities. Unfortunately, England, with their "balance of power" doctrines that were also a major factor in starting World War II could not see this and immediately saw the German Kriegsmarine as a threat. Considering that German overseas possessions were quite minor at the time compared to other European powers, one has to wonder exactly what type of threat the Kriegsmarine posed considering that it was hardly planning to attack the English Navy.

    Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict. You can see this in Meyer's excellent one volume history on the subject, "A World Undone"...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. the 1960′s film, dr. strangelove, was not suppose to be a documentary.
    anybody see that unhinged, talking head, col. ralph peters, on fox news? he reminds me of a character in the movie.
    henry kissinger: “soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs.”
    whomever wants to get his johnson blown off for neocon wet dreams raise your hand.
    obama makes war in 7 countries. wanna go for 8? it’ll give new meaning to ‘behind the 8-ball.’
    bin laden said he wanted to goad america into a protracted land war in asia. he sought to bankrupt another empire. 6 trillion and counting. with eyes wide shut, we do his bidding.
    like kurt vonnegut said in slaughterhouse 5 – and so it goes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer

    henry kissinger: “soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs.”
    whomever wants to get his johnson blown off for neocon wet dreams raise your hand.
    bin laden said he wanted to goad america into a protracted land war in asia. he sought to bankrupt another empire. 6 trillion and counting. with eyes wide shut, we do his bidding.
     
    Well said.

    Domestic politics and international strategy, viewed as extended intelligence tests, with fatal results for those who can't figure out the game.

    , @Bill Jones
    The $1 trillion is a low number but here's the real shocker: the best estimate I've seen from a reasonably unbiased source- The Lancet and sundry updates elsewhere is that the total number of Iraqi slaughtered is 2.3 million or so (and that was back in 2008).

    That works out to about $500,000 per rotting Arab corpse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Corvinus
    "Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable."

    It's not 0nly unthinkable, it's also highly improbable. Just another tinfoil conspiracy theory regarding certain politicians who are itching to take out Russia.

    "It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange."

    Well, would not this armageddon experience you so deeply are moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    Go piss on somebody else’s leg you fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Hey, don't be blaming me for outing your preference. Please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong, but do not neoreactionaries like yourself seek to dismantle democracy? As in, get rid of it. Entirely. Replace it with something else.

    In some cases, neoreactionaries want to install a Christian monarchy and/or aristocracy, with patriarchal and social hierarchal underpinnings. That is something I and am quite sure millions of Americans, regardless of race, creed, or religion, would oppose.

    For example, what are the inherent problems with creating and implementing this new system? Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy? Who decides what sect of Christianity (e.g. fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist) would be “required”? How would atheists be dealt with? How would citizens be able to redress their grievances? How would dissent be dealt with by this new "elite"?

    The curtain has been drawn...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Hahaha! Fred Reed- hysterical as usual. Who exactly talks about war with Russia when U.S doesnt even do battle against a limping third rate Russian client state like Syria. Besides this both Hilary and Trump are in Putins pocket. Whoever wins the election this much for sure- Putin has already won.
    Fred as usual is chasing ghosts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    No, Fred Reed is quite lucid. Whereas your "Putin under my bed" alarm does not seem convincing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Go piss on somebody else's leg you fool.

    Hey, don’t be blaming me for outing your preference. Please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong, but do not neoreactionaries like yourself seek to dismantle democracy? As in, get rid of it. Entirely. Replace it with something else.

    In some cases, neoreactionaries want to install a Christian monarchy and/or aristocracy, with patriarchal and social hierarchal underpinnings. That is something I and am quite sure millions of Americans, regardless of race, creed, or religion, would oppose.

    For example, what are the inherent problems with creating and implementing this new system? Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy? Who decides what sect of Christianity (e.g. fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist) would be “required”? How would atheists be dealt with? How would citizens be able to redress their grievances? How would dissent be dealt with by this new “elite”?

    The curtain has been drawn…

    Read More
    • Replies: @sayless
    Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy?

    The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse.
    With learned men at their side to proffer counsel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Begemot says:
    @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    DFS – If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam? Why is the war in Afghanistan still sputtering on? The opposition has no air force at all. Why is ISIS still in business (assuming USA is serious about knocking out ISIS)? No ISIS air force. Air power is important in war and can produce strong, even decisive effects, but it doesn’t win wars by itself. This delusional idea has been refuted by historical experience, but it persists, as you demonstrate. It takes men on the ground to control the ground. Air power is transient. When it leaves the battle area, the men on the ground resume what they were doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "DFS – If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam?"

    US won the war as long as it remained in Vietnam. The problem was South Vietnam could not win once US moved out.

    It all depends on the goal.

    If US goal is simply to smash another nation, air power is all you need.

    If US engages Russia, its only goal will be to smash Russia from above, not to occupy it.

    US has won in defeating the enemy and gaining control of Iraq and Afghanistan. Where it could not win is in winning over the hearts and minds of the people.
    That can't be done with air power UNLESS it is so fearsome, as in Japan, that it scares the enemy into submission. I mean two nukes will do ya.

    Also, there was a centralized Japanese government to surrender to the US, and most Japanese were loyal to the government. So, when the government surrendered, it was all over even for those who wanted to fight on.

    But when US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they were up against decentralized resistance and rebellion who don't submit to any centralized authority.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    You may be overestimating American air superiority. The latest Russian Sukhoi fighters are quite good and the S-400 air defense system is formidable. The Russian Air Force would be close to its bases and over its own territory while American forces would be dangling at the end of extended lines of communication. Not as easy a victory as your post makes it out to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.

    Russia jets got tetris-level technology.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. I’m as ready as the next guy to hate Russia, but I wish the Democrats would give me better reasons than “they imprison journalists” (yawn), “they invaded Crimea” (not really) and “they hacked into our emails” (good). Meanwhile Democrats tell us all Mexicans are lovely and noble and should get Medicaid, drivers licenses and free college tuition. Nothing about the drugs pouring into this country, nothing on that at all. So according to the Democrats, I’m supposed to love Mexico and embrace open borders, while I prepare for WW3 with Russia because they’re meanies who exposed the DNC as a corrupt shithole. I’d say they’re making my choice this Nov. very easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Realist says:

    “What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven?”

    What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars 1812?

    FIFY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:
    @Begemot
    DFS - If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam? Why is the war in Afghanistan still sputtering on? The opposition has no air force at all. Why is ISIS still in business (assuming USA is serious about knocking out ISIS)? No ISIS air force. Air power is important in war and can produce strong, even decisive effects, but it doesn't win wars by itself. This delusional idea has been refuted by historical experience, but it persists, as you demonstrate. It takes men on the ground to control the ground. Air power is transient. When it leaves the battle area, the men on the ground resume what they were doing.

    “DFS – If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam?”

    US won the war as long as it remained in Vietnam. The problem was South Vietnam could not win once US moved out.

    It all depends on the goal.

    If US goal is simply to smash another nation, air power is all you need.

    If US engages Russia, its only goal will be to smash Russia from above, not to occupy it.

    US has won in defeating the enemy and gaining control of Iraq and Afghanistan. Where it could not win is in winning over the hearts and minds of the people.
    That can’t be done with air power UNLESS it is so fearsome, as in Japan, that it scares the enemy into submission. I mean two nukes will do ya.

    Also, there was a centralized Japanese government to surrender to the US, and most Japanese were loyal to the government. So, when the government surrendered, it was all over even for those who wanted to fight on.

    But when US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they were up against decentralized resistance and rebellion who don’t submit to any centralized authority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "If US engages Russia, its only goal will be to smash Russia from above, not to occupy it."
     
    Wow, that is simply delusional. Do you really think a relative handful of very expensive US weapons systems operating at 10k miles from the Homeland can actually do the job, or are you taking the full strategic triad into your thinking? To smash Russia from above (or China for that matter) will require a Bolt from the Blue that will be nothing short of nuclear first-strike in the expectation of either no response or no capability of response.

    What you would likely get is Launch on Detection with full counter-value targeting that would guarantee there would not be enough people left in the US to even call it a draw, much less a victory. As I noted earlier, long before an all out attack by either side, both would attempt to blind the other by EMP, but this would degrade the quality of life of the average US citizen so much more than their counterparts in the other country that there would be little appetite to escalate further, so the pols would have no choice but to escalate quickly and hope for the best. Fred is very correct in noting that this hubris is a dead end for the society.

    But the more interesting aspect of your conjecture is that the US might survive to ramp up its war footing. This might have been the case in 1940 when the nation was somewhat homogeneous and cohesive, but decades of relatively unconstrained immigration and a further degredation of race relations in the US is likely to result in a fifth column that will cripple any serious ongoing war effort in The Homeland.

    As the old line from War Games goes, the only winning move is not to play.

    BTW, good for you if you can actually equate holding South Vietnam with a million or so of our troops with a victory ... we don't have half the strategic and tactical capability that we had then even though, in inflation adjusted numbers, we spend just as much now as we did then. The only winners in this phony set of wars have been the oligarchs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    You may be overestimating American air superiority. The latest Russian Sukhoi fighters are quite good and the S-400 air defense system is formidable. The Russian Air Force would be close to its bases and over its own territory while American forces would be dangling at the end of extended lines of communication. Not as easy a victory as your post makes it out to be.

    Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.

    Russia jets got tetris-level technology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brohemius
    You can't be serious. Please tell me your posts are a joke. "US jets got google and apple high-tech apps." If this is a stupidity contest, you win. Yet more proof that watching TV turns you into an idiot.
    , @attonn
    All that Russians have to do is to take out the most important US military satellites or even simply jam the GPS constellation ( Russians have by far the best jamming capability) - and American advantage in high-tech gizmos goes up in smoke. Then it's all over for the "world's finest military". Race to surrender.
    People fail to understand that extreme overreliance on technology is not a strength, but a weakness.
    , @Cletus Rothschild
    "Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    "US jets got google and apple high-tech apps."

    When I was in the air force 35 years ago, we used to joke about how we captured a MIG fighter and discovered vacuum tube technology inside. Pathetic! Until I read later that there were a lot of valid reasons that the Soviets had for using that technology in key places, including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @TheJester
    Excellent article Fred,

    I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 ... and with that example no more need be said.

    Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory ... rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

    There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war ... and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

    Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

    I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled "Operation GLASS" as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary's hand on the red button? ... a fourth grade of insanity.

    ” . . . The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. . . . Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. . . .”

    That’s the essence of it. Russians build comparatively uncomplicated weapons that bear up, and are easy to use, under battle conditions. American weaponry is often gold-plated, bells-and-whistles stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Like the $400,000 individually customized F-35 pilot’s helmet that really doesn’t work yet? Or attic stock (spares) in case one is damaged or lost? Surely the DOD has that well in hand. What the hell, the plane doesn’t really work anyway (except as a distribution device for showering defense contractors and congressional districts with taxpayer money).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Rehmat says:
    @Priss Factor
    Actually, the Iraq War, Libyan War, Syrian War(via terrorist proxy), and Ukraine War(via coup proxy) were great successes for the GLOB empire.

    The fact that they were failures is success in the eyes of the Zio-GLOB. Those Muslim nations are crippled for a long long time and, like Humpty Dumpty, may never put together again.

    Neocons love it!!

    Indeed, if Iraq had turned into a successful democracy, it might become yet another threat and challenge to Israel. But in ruins, it is just a sad case.

    I guess you didn’t know Iran is 92% Muslim state and had been putting both the US and Israel on panic since 1979.

    In May 2016 Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei assured the visiting Hamas delegate that no matter who lead the Islamic regime in Iran, the support for Palestinian resistance against the Zionist entity will remain unshakeable because defending Palestinian cause is like defending Islam which is duty of every Muslim on earth.

    “The large-scale war which is currently underway in the region is the continuation of a war that started against the Islamic Republic of Iran 37 years ago and in this confrontation the issue of Palestine is the main and pivotal issue; the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue the duty of supporting Palestine as it has done in the past,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/02/khamenei-defending-palestine-is-defending-islam/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Brohemius says:
    @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    This “Mexican” fought as a Marine in Vietnam. And, Washington did push us into the Civil War. At that point you should have quit. But you’re probably a fern bar Clausewitz, so facts and logic are wasted on you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Brohemius says:
    @Priss Factor
    Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.

    Russia jets got tetris-level technology.

    You can’t be serious. Please tell me your posts are a joke. “US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.” If this is a stupidity contest, you win. Yet more proof that watching TV turns you into an idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    They ARE a joke. Don't forget, DFS is this year's screen name for Miss Prissy's Fantasy Factory. She thinks everything is a Hollywood movie, just hangs around here to be glib, supposedly entertaining, but actually a distracting waste of time.

    There are some serious military analysts at Unz. DFS is not one of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Priss Factor
    "DFS – If air power is so decisive then why did the US lose in Viet Nam where USA enjoyed total air domination over South Viet Nam?"

    US won the war as long as it remained in Vietnam. The problem was South Vietnam could not win once US moved out.

    It all depends on the goal.

    If US goal is simply to smash another nation, air power is all you need.

    If US engages Russia, its only goal will be to smash Russia from above, not to occupy it.

    US has won in defeating the enemy and gaining control of Iraq and Afghanistan. Where it could not win is in winning over the hearts and minds of the people.
    That can't be done with air power UNLESS it is so fearsome, as in Japan, that it scares the enemy into submission. I mean two nukes will do ya.

    Also, there was a centralized Japanese government to surrender to the US, and most Japanese were loyal to the government. So, when the government surrendered, it was all over even for those who wanted to fight on.

    But when US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they were up against decentralized resistance and rebellion who don't submit to any centralized authority.

    “If US engages Russia, its only goal will be to smash Russia from above, not to occupy it.”

    Wow, that is simply delusional. Do you really think a relative handful of very expensive US weapons systems operating at 10k miles from the Homeland can actually do the job, or are you taking the full strategic triad into your thinking? To smash Russia from above (or China for that matter) will require a Bolt from the Blue that will be nothing short of nuclear first-strike in the expectation of either no response or no capability of response.

    What you would likely get is Launch on Detection with full counter-value targeting that would guarantee there would not be enough people left in the US to even call it a draw, much less a victory. As I noted earlier, long before an all out attack by either side, both would attempt to blind the other by EMP, but this would degrade the quality of life of the average US citizen so much more than their counterparts in the other country that there would be little appetite to escalate further, so the pols would have no choice but to escalate quickly and hope for the best. Fred is very correct in noting that this hubris is a dead end for the society.

    But the more interesting aspect of your conjecture is that the US might survive to ramp up its war footing. This might have been the case in 1940 when the nation was somewhat homogeneous and cohesive, but decades of relatively unconstrained immigration and a further degredation of race relations in the US is likely to result in a fifth column that will cripple any serious ongoing war effort in The Homeland.

    As the old line from War Games goes, the only winning move is not to play.

    BTW, good for you if you can actually equate holding South Vietnam with a million or so of our troops with a victory … we don’t have half the strategic and tactical capability that we had then even though, in inflation adjusted numbers, we spend just as much now as we did then. The only winners in this phony set of wars have been the oligarchs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. sayless says:
    @Corvinus
    "Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable."

    It's not 0nly unthinkable, it's also highly improbable. Just another tinfoil conspiracy theory regarding certain politicians who are itching to take out Russia.

    "It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange."

    Well, would not this armageddon experience you so deeply are moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    Would not this Armageddon experience you are so deeply moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    One can only hope.
    It’s an ill wind that blows no good.
    Every cloud has a silver lining.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. sayless says:
    @Corvinus
    Hey, don't be blaming me for outing your preference. Please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong, but do not neoreactionaries like yourself seek to dismantle democracy? As in, get rid of it. Entirely. Replace it with something else.

    In some cases, neoreactionaries want to install a Christian monarchy and/or aristocracy, with patriarchal and social hierarchal underpinnings. That is something I and am quite sure millions of Americans, regardless of race, creed, or religion, would oppose.

    For example, what are the inherent problems with creating and implementing this new system? Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy? Who decides what sect of Christianity (e.g. fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist) would be “required”? How would atheists be dealt with? How would citizens be able to redress their grievances? How would dissent be dealt with by this new "elite"?

    The curtain has been drawn...

    Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy?

    The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse.
    With learned men at their side to proffer counsel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "One can only hope. It’s an ill wind that blows no good. Every cloud has a silver lining."

    That's not hope, that's chaos. Do you want your children to experience the end of the world? See, the thing is that tens of millions of religious folks, especially whites, do not subscribe to this apocalyptic thinking.

    "The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse. With learned men at their side to proffer counsel."

    You've been watching one too many reruns of Mad Max.

    Now, let us assume it is these "warlords" and "natural leaders" that emerge. You do realize it may be the SAME type of people (e.g. Jews, banksters, elitist politicians) that had been in charge before, right? And these "learned men" may be the SAME think tanks at their disposal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. pyrrhus says:
    @turtle
    B61 Mod 12

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

    >Critics say that a more accurate and less destructive nuclear weapon would make leaders less cautious about deploying it

    Bogged down in Russia...
    Nukes to the rescue?

    NATO is not likely to get far enough to even get bogged down, and if they did Russian doctrine calls for tactical nukes….Either way, a desperate and unhinged politician like Hillary might be tempted to blow up the world and retire to her bunker…

    Read More
    • Replies: @turtle
    I am convinced that "Crooked Hillary" if installed in das Weisshaus, *WILL* use nuclear weapons somewhere in the world, @ sometime in her careen through history, to prove she is "as tough as any man."
    Problem is, there may be no one left afterwards to write any history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. pyrrhus says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    This can’t be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah’s Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.
     

    The above was posted by The Anti-Gnostic.
    I agree 100%.

    I totally concur. Thank you again, Fred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, Fred;
    thank you, The Anti-Gnostic;
    thank you, pyrrhus.

    Your I.f.f.U.

    P.S.
    With all my numerous teachers and textbooks of English,
    I did not know the verb "to concur" until recently.
    Probable reason is that English word "concurrently",
    being pronounced in Russian as "конкурентно", means "competitively".
    "конкурент" means "competitor".
    I learned the verb "to concur" from the movie "Catch me if you can",
    when Leonardo DiCaprio's personage asking his "colleagues"-doctors:
    "do you concur ?"
    Back in USSR I owned "English-Russian Dictionary of false friends of Interpreter".
    It dealt with the words, that sound similar in both languages ,
    but have quite different meaning.
    An example: "cabinet" and "кабинет".
    O nostalgia !!!
    I am grateful to my new home, USA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Corvinus
    "Doesn’t matter. War with Russia is unthinkable."

    It's not 0nly unthinkable, it's also highly improbable. Just another tinfoil conspiracy theory regarding certain politicians who are itching to take out Russia.

    "It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange."

    Well, would not this armageddon experience you so deeply are moved by help to facilitate the death of liberalism and ultimately usher in the New World Order of Christian patriarchal, neo-reactionary bliss?

    God is not mocked you leftist retard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey StoneHands,

    No, He certainly is never to be much mocked. Yet nihilists war mongers (whether for external wars or internal civil/racial ones) can and should be.

    Peace.
    , @Corvinus
    It's the neoreactionaries that mock God and His Greatness, not me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Well, one thing is for sure: if we ever had a serious war on our hands and had to reinstate a draft, that giant sucking sound you hear would be the entire population of male illegals (and probably green card holders too) rushing for the border to GTFO before they got put into a uniform against their will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My sons and grandsons are totally "legal". They trust me, and will consume what I serve them. Should certain idiots instigate a "serious" war, I would not hesitate to serve "mickey finns" to my boys and GTFO with them - Canada or Mexico, machts nichts. I suspect that every mother in Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc., considers any operation that endangers her children a "serious" war, and I stand with those women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Old fogey says:

    Excellent post, Fred. Many thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. KenH says:

    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?

    How many U.S. congressman do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to do the actual fighting and put themselves in harm’s way? It is believed that up to 1/3 of the Roman Senate perished in fighting Hannibal and his army at the battle of Cannae. That’s a far cry from the fags, girly men and Israel worshippers that serve in the U.S. senate and who are never forced to suffer the consequences of their own war mongering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Totally down for drafting the politicians to fight their own wars - that should put a stop to it right quick.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Flavius says:

    Excellent column. Better than excellent. Every voter should be required to read it, or have it read to him or her, before being allowed to vote… expecting a quiz afterward. So they should come prepared with half sheets.
    Oh yeah. Anyone who gets the question wrong on whether Russia will allow its cities and miltary installations to be subjected to air war without extinguishing life in Washington DC just for starters doesn’t get to vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Talha says:
    @Stonehands
    God is not mocked you leftist retard.

    Hey StoneHands,

    No, He certainly is never to be much mocked. Yet nihilists war mongers (whether for external wars or internal civil/racial ones) can and should be.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @pyrrhus
    I totally concur. Thank you again, Fred.

    Thank you, Fred;
    thank you, The Anti-Gnostic;
    thank you, pyrrhus.

    Your I.f.f.U.

    P.S.
    With all my numerous teachers and textbooks of English,
    I did not know the verb “to concur” until recently.
    Probable reason is that English word “concurrently”,
    being pronounced in Russian as “конкурентно”, means “competitively”.
    “конкурент” means “competitor”.
    I learned the verb “to concur” from the movie “Catch me if you can”,
    when Leonardo DiCaprio’s personage asking his “colleagues”-doctors:
    “do you concur ?”
    Back in USSR I owned “English-Russian Dictionary of false friends of Interpreter”.
    It dealt with the words, that sound similar in both languages ,
    but have quite different meaning.
    An example: “cabinet” and “кабинет”.
    O nostalgia !!!
    I am grateful to my new home, USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    When I first used the term 'concur' in Europe, they thought I was saying 'conquer'.
    , @Marty
    'Concur', meaning to agree, was very seldom used in the U.S., in any setting, before the advent of all-sports talk radio somewhere in the '90s. Americans are by nature unpretentious people, and use of 'concur' for the more mellifluous 'agree' is flatly pretentious. But sports babblers, understandably insecure about the worth of their life's work, needed special help, hence concur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Talha says:
    @KenH

    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?
     
    How many U.S. congressman do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to do the actual fighting and put themselves in harm's way? It is believed that up to 1/3 of the Roman Senate perished in fighting Hannibal and his army at the battle of Cannae. That's a far cry from the fags, girly men and Israel worshippers that serve in the U.S. senate and who are never forced to suffer the consequences of their own war mongering.

    Totally down for drafting the politicians to fight their own wars – that should put a stop to it right quick.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    It's definitely an idea whose time has come.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Corvinus says:
    @sayless
    Who would consist of this monarchy and/or aristocracy?

    The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse.
    With learned men at their side to proffer counsel.

    “One can only hope. It’s an ill wind that blows no good. Every cloud has a silver lining.”

    That’s not hope, that’s chaos. Do you want your children to experience the end of the world? See, the thing is that tens of millions of religious folks, especially whites, do not subscribe to this apocalyptic thinking.

    “The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse. With learned men at their side to proffer counsel.”

    You’ve been watching one too many reruns of Mad Max.

    Now, let us assume it is these “warlords” and “natural leaders” that emerge. You do realize it may be the SAME type of people (e.g. Jews, banksters, elitist politicians) that had been in charge before, right? And these “learned men” may be the SAME think tanks at their disposal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I would think the new leadership would include more organized crime leaders, police officers and military men. People who know how to shoot, are well armed and decently organized. I would think the examples you cited would fade away very quickly unless they were able to latch onto one of the three groups I mentioned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Corvinus says:
    @Stonehands
    God is not mocked you leftist retard.

    It’s the neoreactionaries that mock God and His Greatness, not me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @TheJester
    Excellent article Fred,

    I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 ... and with that example no more need be said.

    Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory ... rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

    There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war ... and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

    Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

    I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled "Operation GLASS" as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary's hand on the red button? ... a fourth grade of insanity.

    AK-47

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits.

    More like weapons are designed by Western corporations, the technology stolen by espionage, and lower quality copies are designed to accomodate their more primitive manufacturing infrastructure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    So what, people who fight decide wars.

    So far our list of successes is very few, we couldn't even win the Iraqis resistance or the Afghanis. And our troops had the best and most expensive weapons in the world.

    And when they went toe to toe with them in Falluja and took some casualties, they almost busted a gut. We're so casualty adverse we cannot take any sort hard hit and not curl up in a ball.
    , @Marcus

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.
     
    Wrong, the similarities are mostly superficial guns.connect.fi/gow/QA4.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Rich says:
    @Corvinus
    "One can only hope. It’s an ill wind that blows no good. Every cloud has a silver lining."

    That's not hope, that's chaos. Do you want your children to experience the end of the world? See, the thing is that tens of millions of religious folks, especially whites, do not subscribe to this apocalyptic thinking.

    "The warlords and natural leaders who will emerge after societal collapse. With learned men at their side to proffer counsel."

    You've been watching one too many reruns of Mad Max.

    Now, let us assume it is these "warlords" and "natural leaders" that emerge. You do realize it may be the SAME type of people (e.g. Jews, banksters, elitist politicians) that had been in charge before, right? And these "learned men" may be the SAME think tanks at their disposal.

    I would think the new leadership would include more organized crime leaders, police officers and military men. People who know how to shoot, are well armed and decently organized. I would think the examples you cited would fade away very quickly unless they were able to latch onto one of the three groups I mentioned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I would think the new leadership would include more organized crime leaders, police officers and military men. People who know how to shoot, are well armed and decently organized. I would think the examples you cited would fade away very quickly unless they were able to latch onto one of the three groups I mentioned."

    You don't think the Jews, banksters, and elitist politicians won't have their own band of organized crime leaders, police officers, and military men in their back pockets?

    You, too, should write science fiction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, Fred;
    thank you, The Anti-Gnostic;
    thank you, pyrrhus.

    Your I.f.f.U.

    P.S.
    With all my numerous teachers and textbooks of English,
    I did not know the verb "to concur" until recently.
    Probable reason is that English word "concurrently",
    being pronounced in Russian as "конкурентно", means "competitively".
    "конкурент" means "competitor".
    I learned the verb "to concur" from the movie "Catch me if you can",
    when Leonardo DiCaprio's personage asking his "colleagues"-doctors:
    "do you concur ?"
    Back in USSR I owned "English-Russian Dictionary of false friends of Interpreter".
    It dealt with the words, that sound similar in both languages ,
    but have quite different meaning.
    An example: "cabinet" and "кабинет".
    O nostalgia !!!
    I am grateful to my new home, USA.

    When I first used the term ‘concur’ in Europe, they thought I was saying ‘conquer’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. mtn cur says:

    “You don’t have to be smart to act stupid, but if you are going to act stupid, you better be tough:” – Pete Lampe, gunner on an M-60 in the Fulda gap, late 1970 something. We are not smart and no longer tough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @The Anti-Gnostic
    This can't be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah's Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn't matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    Absolutely true. No sane person has ever believed that NATO could hold off Russia, with or without the Warsaw Pact, without resorting to nuclear weapons. A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    For the love of God, vote for Trump. Because otherwise you are voting for Queen Hill.
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.
     
    Oh, for the love of Christ. That's like being on a road trip and saying, "I really need to take a crap really bad, but I cannot bring myself to use a dirty gas station restroom, so I'll just sit here and shit my pants in the car where my friends will have to smell it."

    You're thinking like a moron and sounding like a pussy -- the kind of moronic pussy who could lose this whole thing and mess things up for a very long time. I won't go all the way and call you a moron or a pussy, because you still have time the come to your senses.

    Sometimes a voter's gotta do what he's gotta do. Just hold your nose and do it.
    , @Anonymous
    A vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton. It's your choice to decide if you want to live with consequences of electing another Clinton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Fred
    Damn sorry my wife and I didn’t get to drink a beer with you last year by the lake but please live a long fucking time and drive um all crazy.
    Love you
    Ned from Louisiana

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Adolf Verloc
    Absolutely true. No sane person has ever believed that NATO could hold off Russia, with or without the Warsaw Pact, without resorting to nuclear weapons. A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

    For the love of God, vote for Trump. Because otherwise you are voting for Queen Hill.

    Read More
    • Agree: Auntie Analogue
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Totally down for drafting the politicians to fight their own wars - that should put a stop to it right quick.

    Peace.

    It’s definitely an idea whose time has come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Maybe John Fogerty can write an anthem for it; Unfortunate Son.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Talha says:
    @KenH
    It's definitely an idea whose time has come.

    Maybe John Fogerty can write an anthem for it; Unfortunate Son.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. rod1963 says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    AK-47

     

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.


    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits.

     

    More like weapons are designed by Western corporations, the technology stolen by espionage, and lower quality copies are designed to accomodate their more primitive manufacturing infrastructure.

    So what, people who fight decide wars.

    So far our list of successes is very few, we couldn’t even win the Iraqis resistance or the Afghanis. And our troops had the best and most expensive weapons in the world.

    And when they went toe to toe with them in Falluja and took some casualties, they almost busted a gut. We’re so casualty adverse we cannot take any sort hard hit and not curl up in a ball.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Pagoda says:

    YKW wants a war with Russia, big time. Thank God they’re morons. And thank God Biden’s son is dead. Small miracles…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @Adolf Verloc
    Absolutely true. No sane person has ever believed that NATO could hold off Russia, with or without the Warsaw Pact, without resorting to nuclear weapons. A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

    A modus vivendi with Russia ought to be at the top of our foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

    Oh, for the love of Christ. That’s like being on a road trip and saying, “I really need to take a crap really bad, but I cannot bring myself to use a dirty gas station restroom, so I’ll just sit here and shit my pants in the car where my friends will have to smell it.”

    You’re thinking like a moron and sounding like a pussy — the kind of moronic pussy who could lose this whole thing and mess things up for a very long time. I won’t go all the way and call you a moron or a pussy, because you still have time the come to your senses.

    Sometimes a voter’s gotta do what he’s gotta do. Just hold your nose and do it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. RobinG says:
    @Brohemius
    You can't be serious. Please tell me your posts are a joke. "US jets got google and apple high-tech apps." If this is a stupidity contest, you win. Yet more proof that watching TV turns you into an idiot.

    They ARE a joke. Don’t forget, DFS is this year’s screen name for Miss Prissy’s Fantasy Factory. She thinks everything is a Hollywood movie, just hangs around here to be glib, supposedly entertaining, but actually a distracting waste of time.

    There are some serious military analysts at Unz. DFS is not one of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Mark Green says: • Website

    Good one, Fred. Entertaining and full of insight. But Fred. Please. Stop repeating the silly falsehood that the Iraq war “was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil”. No Fred. Wrong. It was not. Stop saying that. You’re mistaken. (Brainwashed?) You’re just repeating something you’ve heard before and this is not like you, Fred. Maintain your originality and skepticism. It’s why we love you so.

    Not only did no US oil company ever advocate for a preemptive war on Iraq, but the US government never took oil out of Iraq or exploited its easy access to Iraqi oil during or after the US annihilation of Iraq (2003-present). It simply never happened. This is a myth cooked up by the Chomsky wing of the so-called anti-war movement. The instinctively cover up for the Zionist entity whenever needed. Needless to say, they’re very busy.

    As for the oil, it’s still there. First it got expensive. Now it’s cheaper. Doesn’t matter. There’s plenty of it and the Arabs are dying to sell it. It’s the only way they make money, after all.

    As Saddam Hussein remarked before his untimely lynching: “What do you expect me to do with the oil, drink it?”

    Good point.

    Today, Iraq’s oil is being drilled and exported by Iraqis as well as Russians and Chinese. And don’t forget ISIS. Or the Kurds.

    On the other hand, virtually all the US major oil companies failed to win their bids to drill in Iraq once hostilities there lessened sufficiently to resume production. So Americans are purchasing Iraqi oil just like everybody else: on the world market. No discount.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that’s full of dead people.

    The good news?

    Iraq now poses absolutely no threat to the glorious state of Israel.

    Feel safer?

    Read More
    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @KenH
    Excellent points and just because oil companies stood to gain doesn't mean they were the driving force behind Iraq war II or even supported efforts to get in that war. I believe the IHR debunked the claims that American oil companies were the architects of the war. Recall that in 2003 Virginia Congressman Jim Moran told his constituents that we wouldn't be going to war in Iraq "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community.”

    Jewish pressure and the ensuing media firestorm elicited a mea culpa from Mr. Moran. But then again in 2007 he charged AIPAC with "pushing the Iraq war from the beginning". It appears he stood his ground a little better the second time around.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that’s full of dead people.
     
    Iraq was a relatively stable, semi-prosperous nation making strides towards first world status until the post Iraq war I sanctions and Iraq war II in 2003. The sanctions claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, which failed to emotionally move Secretary of State Madeline Albright who feigned shock in discovering that she was Jewish.

    Iraq's reduction to warring statelets wracked by bloody sectarian strife serves the state of Israel very well. I believe they refer to it as "controlled chaos".
    , @Carlton Meyer
    Fred Reed is correct, you are incorrect. Oil was one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq.

    Read details here: "Oil from Irak" http://www.g2mil.com/Irak.htm
    , @Bill Jones
    Just because the US oil companies failed to steal the Iraqi's oil doesn't mean that wasn't the plan.
    As someone pointed out elsewhere today, in competence and malice are not mutually exclusive.

    The oil companies were drawing up plans for oil as early as Bush the Lesser's first cabinet meeting in Jan 2001
    See:https://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471217898&sr=8-1&keywords=Paul+O%27Neill

    and this snippet

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books
    "Oil contracts
    He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, talks about carving the country's fuel reserves up between the world's oil companies. It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Mr Suskind said. "
    , @Joe Franklin
    Iraq was invaded as part of a larger plan to encircle Iran, the prime enemy of Israel.


    Iraq was invaded on the western end of Iran, and Afghanistan was invaded on the eastern end of Iran, effectively surrounding Iran.

    The strategy was to defeat Iranian SCUD missiles launched at Israel in the short flight time they needed to reach Israel.

    Anti-ballistic missile counter-measures are most effective in the boost phase of a targeted SCUD missile, and proximity of an ABM to a target SCUD launch origin enhances the chance of a SCUD shoot down.

    Hence, American-Israeli ABMs are now located on the eastern border of Iraq and western border of Afghanistan, and both aimed at Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Marty says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Thank you, Fred;
    thank you, The Anti-Gnostic;
    thank you, pyrrhus.

    Your I.f.f.U.

    P.S.
    With all my numerous teachers and textbooks of English,
    I did not know the verb "to concur" until recently.
    Probable reason is that English word "concurrently",
    being pronounced in Russian as "конкурентно", means "competitively".
    "конкурент" means "competitor".
    I learned the verb "to concur" from the movie "Catch me if you can",
    when Leonardo DiCaprio's personage asking his "colleagues"-doctors:
    "do you concur ?"
    Back in USSR I owned "English-Russian Dictionary of false friends of Interpreter".
    It dealt with the words, that sound similar in both languages ,
    but have quite different meaning.
    An example: "cabinet" and "кабинет".
    O nostalgia !!!
    I am grateful to my new home, USA.

    ‘Concur’, meaning to agree, was very seldom used in the U.S., in any setting, before the advent of all-sports talk radio somewhere in the ’90s. Americans are by nature unpretentious people, and use of ‘concur’ for the more mellifluous ‘agree’ is flatly pretentious. But sports babblers, understandably insecure about the worth of their life’s work, needed special help, hence concur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A limited armed clash of some sort with the Russians, perhaps a shoot down of an American plane that ‘accidentally’ strays over Russian airspace, would be just what the doctor ordered. The momentum of panic created by 9-11 has dissipated by now. It’s be another major opportunity to pass more laws, revoke citizen rights, increase the domestic security goon state and loot the public treasury. The American public is the real target.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Brohemius says:
    @Son of Dixie
    Fred is just having fun with his readers. His primary objective is to soften the audience towards open borders with Mexico.

    This garbage is typical of Fred the turncoat.

    Not your concern, Fred. Just stay in Mexico and let Americans deal with American problems.

    I lived in Washington, D.C., from ’80 to ’84, when Fred was writing for the brand new Washington Times. I worked for the Feds for 14 years, and it is easy to see why Fred would want to get the hell outta Dodge. D.C. is the biggest concentration of criminals on the face of the Earth. And their actions affect everyone in the U.S.A. Fred merely exercised his God-given right to escape tyranny.
    All you are doing is advertising your stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. attonn says:

    Russians produce world’s best engineers and programmers (as witnessed by their dominance in international competitions), while America excels in women’s studies and other phony endeavors. If not for steady imports of Chinese and Indian brainpower, the US would be a scientific wasteland.
    There will be no war with Russia. Having one would mean the fastest defeat of the US Army on record.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    You're as guilty as the neo-cons who think the US would easily defeat the Russians. I'm sure Russia has great engineers, but the US has a bunch of great homegrown engineers and programmers, too. You just don't hear about them because the media is pushing its "immigration is great" meme.
    You are right, though, a war between Russia and the US would result in a fast defeat, but for both sides, and for the rest of the world. Whichever side thought it faced imminent defeat, would immediately launch its nukes, bringing an end to civilization.
    Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that has prevented WWIII, lets hope the amateurs in charge at least know that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    Air power has been decisive. I think it is going to fail now unless you are talking missiles.

    If the Russian air defences are as good as they claim to be, the birds will be blown out of the sky and the carriers will be sunk.

    If air defence improves it may well be that armies and tanks will be as important as they ever were in the past.

    I do think America, Australia and UK are extremely vulnerable to underwater missile technology that was in the news last year, that looks impossible to defend against.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Yes, the nuclear submarines are "the thing." Back when Russia was flush with money and oligarchs were jetting/boating around the world, at least they put tons of money into their subs/technology. My grandpa would say,"the one who rules the seas, rules the world." Did anyone else notice that there are never Independence Day-like movies with subs battling aliens? I guess subs are still sort of boring....boring but deadly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Incisive and accurate Fred. Having lived a while, I am amazed at how it is now our own leadership that sounds as delusional and mendacious as the late Soviets used to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    Germany did not start World War I.

    Of course not. It’s not like the Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia, Russia’s ally, or invaded Belgium in order to take Paris – the kind of things that might actually start a war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia]

    You might with exactly as much, or as little justice, accuse Russia of egging on Serbia to not comply with the Austrian ultimatum, or the French of egging on the Russians to thus egg on the Serbs. But then the whole Fritz Fischer school of historiography has never amounted to anything but this kind of silly double standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. attonn says:
    @Priss Factor
    Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.

    Russia jets got tetris-level technology.

    All that Russians have to do is to take out the most important US military satellites or even simply jam the GPS constellation ( Russians have by far the best jamming capability) – and American advantage in high-tech gizmos goes up in smoke. Then it’s all over for the “world’s finest military”. Race to surrender.
    People fail to understand that extreme overreliance on technology is not a strength, but a weakness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Lawrence Fitton
    the 1960's film, dr. strangelove, was not suppose to be a documentary.
    anybody see that unhinged, talking head, col. ralph peters, on fox news? he reminds me of a character in the movie.
    henry kissinger: "soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs."
    whomever wants to get his johnson blown off for neocon wet dreams raise your hand.
    obama makes war in 7 countries. wanna go for 8? it'll give new meaning to 'behind the 8-ball.'
    bin laden said he wanted to goad america into a protracted land war in asia. he sought to bankrupt another empire. 6 trillion and counting. with eyes wide shut, we do his bidding.
    like kurt vonnegut said in slaughterhouse 5 - and so it goes.

    henry kissinger: “soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs.”
    whomever wants to get his johnson blown off for neocon wet dreams raise your hand.
    bin laden said he wanted to goad america into a protracted land war in asia. he sought to bankrupt another empire. 6 trillion and counting. with eyes wide shut, we do his bidding.

    Well said.

    Domestic politics and international strategy, viewed as extended intelligence tests, with fatal results for those who can’t figure out the game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. China is the only nation that could become more powerful than America.

    Possibly much more powerful.

    Russia, a nation with a potent military and a lengthy border with China, could help America counter China.

    China will not start a war, if defeat is certain.

    Imagine how different the world would appear to China’s leaders if Russia was an ally of America, instead of the current situation, in which Russia is an adversary of America.

    In order to discourage China from starting a war, America should reconcile with Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Too late, mate. And US does not need any allies, only satellites. That is, US has nothing to offer to Russia that Russia would want. We need to appreciate that outcomes always have good reasons, even when we have no clue what those reasons are.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Your analysis seems sound. Neither the USA nor Russia -- alone -- will stand a chance in conventional warfare against China pretty soon.

    USA and Russia need each other desperately, both to deter China and to push back Islamists from our lands and bordering countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Well stated Fred. Hillary C does not know her a** from a hole in the ground. Trump on the other hand has built skyscrapers and golf courses and knows a thing or two about personal and business relations. Like Trump says, how about being friends with Russia? We may never go to the altar but that does not mean we cannot have mutual respect and trade with one another and get along. Why view Russia as a threat? How about we stay out of their back yard, they stay out of ours, and we respect one another and be on amicable terms? The Cold War is over. If you asked your average citizen on either side, neither would want any kind of war for crying out loud. But they have more sense than our “leadership” in Washington, which probably is the world leader in corrupt idiots per capita–we’re #1. I have listened to many things Putin has said — he is not a warmonger and is not looking for a fight. Could we be smart for a change and not give him one? What is it with the endless war morons in the Pentagon, White House, and elsewhere? They tend to be think tank morons who want to play global geopolitical strategy games, and not military men and, like Fred says, never have worn boots. For God’s sake people do not vote for Hillary, that chicken hawk corrupt lying idiot (who hates the military) would double our debt and get us into WW III.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    "What is it with the endless war morons in the Pentagon, White House, and elsewhere? They tend to be think tank morons who want to play global geopolitical strategy games..."

    That's exactly the problem, in a nutshell... They are playing GAMES; it's all GAMES to them, with the world as a board. They incur no personal risk, do no personal fighting, are never personally threatened, held accountable or made to pay for their criminal actions. They are never personally hunted down or punished.
    , @Lagertha
    No one remembers Finlandization. Finland is still free and has played the nicey-nice game with Russia a long time. EU sanctions are very destructive to the economy now(trade with Russia 25% of GDP), but the EU overlords will not relent. I will definitely vote for Trump since he will continue the nicey-nice game.

    It kinda' angers me that the supercilious talking heads in DC disregard Finland's long, artful way of getting along. And, if there was ever a country that fought to it's last bloody breath in WW2, against impossible odds, well, we know a thing or two. OT: there were some taunts this summer (made the news but don't have the energy to find/cite) by "unpredictable, scary" Finnish men at the migrants lounging around in the city, telling them to "be a man and return to your country and fight for it's independence." Finnish men are weirdly, a bit scary for the migrants (much taller) - throughout history they have been fighters and love their knives and axes...o.k., that's a stereotype :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Miro23 says:

    A good article, but it’s “Fighting the Last War”.

    The real lesson from WWII was that nuclear weapons (used against Japan) made tanks/ ships/ soldier training etc.completely irrelevant. The US-Japanese nuclear war only lasted 9 days between the dropping of the bomb on the 6th August 1945 and the announced surrender on the 15th.

    Fred Reed rightly focuses on why any governement (even a Neocon led one) would get into this, but if it did happen, it would all be down to deception, speed, capability and reliability in delivering a first strike mixture of EMP, neutron and standard bombs, with it all over in weeks if not days (if the systems worked).

    So if the Neocon lodestar is absolute power in the US (i.e. a dictatorship), a National Emergency coupled to a US launched First Strike against Russia or China would suit them fine, as the US would probably remain intact and they could take Emergency Wartime Powers to “Save the Country” or something similar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. @Priss Factor
    Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.

    Russia jets got tetris-level technology.

    “Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    “US jets got google and apple high-tech apps.”

    When I was in the air force 35 years ago, we used to joke about how we captured a MIG fighter and discovered vacuum tube technology inside. Pathetic! Until I read later that there were a lot of valid reasons that the Soviets had for using that technology in key places, including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.}

    unlike IC/transistors, vacuum tube is immune EMP.
    , @Kiza
    Rest assured that the top military brass knew (were told by the military scientists) why the vacuume tubes were there, but they let the brainwashing propaganda wash over their own troops, to give them that important but false sense of unchallengeable superiority. Information war is always fought internally even more than externally. This is relevant today even more than "35 years ago". This is the same reason why young people, 16-18 year olds, are preferred soldiers - manipulability.

    But your story is an excellent example of the meaning of discussions on "military superiority". My nation, almost constantly at war against invaders for centuries has a simple saying: wars are not won by armaments then by strength of heart of ordinary soldiers.
    , @incredulously Yours,
    Exactly right. Were YOU in my DLI Russian class???! LOL! MiG-25s had 'em. (Tubes). They ARE convenient and easy to change out (Fender Twin Reverbs use the same.) Noo, I would NOT *fornicate* with the Russians. No need with 'peace through strength', open dialog and sotrudnichestvo! Besides, it's INSANE to even brook the notion...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Moutain"] says:

    Noam Chomsky:”Donald Trump is a threat to the Human Species…vote for Hillary Clinton”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dcite
    Chomsky? People would believe him about this? Disinfo Inc. is how I think of that one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Those of you who insist that nuclear war is impossible or even unlikely probably think that Washington is a rational actor. It is not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Rich says:
    @attonn
    Russians produce world's best engineers and programmers (as witnessed by their dominance in international competitions), while America excels in women's studies and other phony endeavors. If not for steady imports of Chinese and Indian brainpower, the US would be a scientific wasteland.
    There will be no war with Russia. Having one would mean the fastest defeat of the US Army on record.

    You’re as guilty as the neo-cons who think the US would easily defeat the Russians. I’m sure Russia has great engineers, but the US has a bunch of great homegrown engineers and programmers, too. You just don’t hear about them because the media is pushing its “immigration is great” meme.
    You are right, though, a war between Russia and the US would result in a fast defeat, but for both sides, and for the rest of the world. Whichever side thought it faced imminent defeat, would immediately launch its nukes, bringing an end to civilization.
    Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that has prevented WWIII, lets hope the amateurs in charge at least know that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Right: all this talk about tanks and such is ridiculous.

    Neither US nor Russia can be defeated by conventional arms.
    Both US and Russia will start using tactical nukes on the battlefield right off the bat, and then will escalate to strategic nukes, and then it's goodnight for everybody.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Incitatus says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. . . . Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. . . ."

    That's the essence of it. Russians build comparatively uncomplicated weapons that bear up, and are easy to use, under battle conditions. American weaponry is often gold-plated, bells-and-whistles stuff.

    Like the $400,000 individually customized F-35 pilot’s helmet that really doesn’t work yet? Or attic stock (spares) in case one is damaged or lost? Surely the DOD has that well in hand. What the hell, the plane doesn’t really work anyway (except as a distribution device for showering defense contractors and congressional districts with taxpayer money).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. I am impressed Fred but still have a niggling feeling that i don’t know some critical facts underlying your case. Where can I find evidence that Hillary, or those she relies on for advice, has the remotest interest in risking a war with Russia, let alone actively seeking one?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    On drugs again, wizard? You got yo kick that nasty, brain killing habit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. 5371 says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Germany did not start World War I.
     
    Of course not. It's not like the Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia, Russia's ally, or invaded Belgium in order to take Paris - the kind of things that might actually start a war.

    [Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia]

    You might with exactly as much, or as little justice, accuse Russia of egging on Serbia to not comply with the Austrian ultimatum, or the French of egging on the Russians to thus egg on the Serbs. But then the whole Fritz Fischer school of historiography has never amounted to anything but this kind of silly double standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    From Hajo Holborn's introduction to the English-language edition Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War':

    Fischer places the chief responsibility for the start of the war squarely on the shoulders of the imperial German government.

    Outside of Germany this has been the predominant view among historians for some time. First presented by Bernadotte Schmitt and Pierre Renouvin it originally had to contend with opinions which came closer to the German position that all the great powers or at least Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany - in that order - were to blame for the conflict. The two-volume work of the Italian Luigi Albertini on the origins of World War I, translated into English in 1952, did much to crystallize the judgment of the non-German historians around the conviction that the chief responsibility for plunging Europe into war rested with the German government. Fritz Fischer's treatment, while adding some interesting new details, conforms in general to Albertini's narrative.
     
    Fischer's 'interesting new details' came from his and his students' labouring in the German government's archives. But as Holborn says, he didn't propose the hypothesis.

    I recall (I can't remember where, I'm afraid), one English historian, possibly Liddell-Hart or AJP Taylor, saying that he didn't know what all the fuss was about when Fischer's book came out: Fischer's conclusions, regarding German culpability for starting the war, were largely the same as the long-established conclusions of historians in the rest of the world.

    So much for the whole 'Fritz Fischer school of historiography' not amounting to much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Corvinus says:
    @Rich
    I would think the new leadership would include more organized crime leaders, police officers and military men. People who know how to shoot, are well armed and decently organized. I would think the examples you cited would fade away very quickly unless they were able to latch onto one of the three groups I mentioned.

    “I would think the new leadership would include more organized crime leaders, police officers and military men. People who know how to shoot, are well armed and decently organized. I would think the examples you cited would fade away very quickly unless they were able to latch onto one of the three groups I mentioned.”

    You don’t think the Jews, banksters, and elitist politicians won’t have their own band of organized crime leaders, police officers, and military men in their back pockets?

    You, too, should write science fiction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. avraham says:

    Nice essay. What do you think of the situation today in the Ukraine and the Crimea?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. KenH says:
    @Mark Green
    Good one, Fred. Entertaining and full of insight. But Fred. Please. Stop repeating the silly falsehood that the Iraq war "was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil". No Fred. Wrong. It was not. Stop saying that. You're mistaken. (Brainwashed?) You're just repeating something you've heard before and this is not like you, Fred. Maintain your originality and skepticism. It's why we love you so.

    Not only did no US oil company ever advocate for a preemptive war on Iraq, but the US government never took oil out of Iraq or exploited its easy access to Iraqi oil during or after the US annihilation of Iraq (2003-present). It simply never happened. This is a myth cooked up by the Chomsky wing of the so-called anti-war movement. The instinctively cover up for the Zionist entity whenever needed. Needless to say, they're very busy.

    As for the oil, it's still there. First it got expensive. Now it's cheaper. Doesn't matter. There's plenty of it and the Arabs are dying to sell it. It's the only way they make money, after all.

    As Saddam Hussein remarked before his untimely lynching: "What do you expect me to do with the oil, drink it?"

    Good point.

    Today, Iraq's oil is being drilled and exported by Iraqis as well as Russians and Chinese. And don't forget ISIS. Or the Kurds.

    On the other hand, virtually all the US major oil companies failed to win their bids to drill in Iraq once hostilities there lessened sufficiently to resume production. So Americans are purchasing Iraqi oil just like everybody else: on the world market. No discount.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that's full of dead people.

    The good news?

    Iraq now poses absolutely no threat to the glorious state of Israel.

    Feel safer?

    Excellent points and just because oil companies stood to gain doesn’t mean they were the driving force behind Iraq war II or even supported efforts to get in that war. I believe the IHR debunked the claims that American oil companies were the architects of the war. Recall that in 2003 Virginia Congressman Jim Moran told his constituents that we wouldn’t be going to war in Iraq “if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community.”

    Jewish pressure and the ensuing media firestorm elicited a mea culpa from Mr. Moran. But then again in 2007 he charged AIPAC with “pushing the Iraq war from the beginning”. It appears he stood his ground a little better the second time around.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that’s full of dead people.

    Iraq was a relatively stable, semi-prosperous nation making strides towards first world status until the post Iraq war I sanctions and Iraq war II in 2003. The sanctions claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, which failed to emotionally move Secretary of State Madeline Albright who feigned shock in discovering that she was Jewish.

    Iraq’s reduction to warring statelets wracked by bloody sectarian strife serves the state of Israel very well. I believe they refer to it as “controlled chaos”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Avery says:
    @Cletus Rothschild
    "Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    "US jets got google and apple high-tech apps."

    When I was in the air force 35 years ago, we used to joke about how we captured a MIG fighter and discovered vacuum tube technology inside. Pathetic! Until I read later that there were a lot of valid reasons that the Soviets had for using that technology in key places, including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.

    {including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.}

    unlike IC/transistors, vacuum tube is immune EMP.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cletus Rothschild
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Hello Avery, vacuum tube is not immune, but the amount of EMP energy to diasable it (burn through it) is several orders of magnitude higher. In other words, unless such device was in the immediate zone of a nuclear explosion, it would be likely to survive and continue functioning. In fact, one could clearly state that miniaturisation is the greatest enemy of survivability in the EMP environment - large transistors have a better chance of surviving than highly integrated CPUs. Thus, your smart phone would die before the dumb cellular phone. The grand-father of transistor technology, the vacuum tube, is the equivalent of a Mercedes car in car crashes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Avery says:
    @Rich
    You're as guilty as the neo-cons who think the US would easily defeat the Russians. I'm sure Russia has great engineers, but the US has a bunch of great homegrown engineers and programmers, too. You just don't hear about them because the media is pushing its "immigration is great" meme.
    You are right, though, a war between Russia and the US would result in a fast defeat, but for both sides, and for the rest of the world. Whichever side thought it faced imminent defeat, would immediately launch its nukes, bringing an end to civilization.
    Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that has prevented WWIII, lets hope the amateurs in charge at least know that.

    Right: all this talk about tanks and such is ridiculous.

    Neither US nor Russia can be defeated by conventional arms.
    Both US and Russia will start using tactical nukes on the battlefield right off the bat, and then will escalate to strategic nukes, and then it’s goodnight for everybody.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Democratic Party Foriegn Policy Advisors-Wonks=Democratic Party Soccer Moms as Mass Murderers=Classy Feminism….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. @The Anti-Gnostic
    This can't be repeated enough. Putin may be a cold-blooded KGB assassin; Russians may be uncouth brutes who beat up theater majors and Jehovah's Witnesses; they may all be drawing up plans to stitch on five more provinces and move the capital to Crimea and crown Putin Tsar.

    Doesn't matter. War with Russia is unthinkable. It would be a horrific, WWII-style meatgrinder the likes of which none of our officers or enlisted have ever experienced, and would rapidly degenerate into a nuclear exchange.

    Thanks for your continued work Fred.

    I would like to think that in the event HRC is elected, that adults will take her into the back room and reason with her, reminding her that Mother Russia has seven thousand reasons–all nuclear tipped and many with our name on them–why it would be in everyone’s interest that we make nice-nice with Russia . I would like to think that she will listen to reason. I would like to think this…but am not counting on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Fred did not discuss who has the better propaganda weapons.

    imo USA wins that war, hands down. Since pre-WWI USA has had means of turning the masses on and off, at will, via print, then radio, then tv, then Hollywood, now all-of-the-above plus what is oxymoronically called social media. in my grossly inexpert opinion, USA (with a little help from its pariah-state friends) has full spectrum dominance over the propaganda field. globally.

    Fred carps about elites who would go to war, but what about the mf ers who “volunteer” to fight?
    No fighters, no war.
    If ever there was a reason for, a demand for a mass walk-out, it centers on US military: US military fighters need to pick their manhood up and put their weapons down and say, I ain’t gonna do your killing for you.

    a. They are not “volunteers,” they are employees.

    b. They applied for the job, they were not coerced to take the job. Hitler didn’t make them do it.

    c. The job is to kill and destroy. Didn’t Nuremberg direct that “I was just following orders” is not a defense? Doesn’t every human being have moral agency? Are soldiers, even wimmen and LGBTs sorta human, therefore are they not required by what we used to call natural law to make moral decisions and not do evil shit like kill other people for no good reason?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    If one studies the famos but misinterpreted case from the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Russian submarine commander Arkhipov one comes with interesting insights about Soviet and US military psychology.

    The incident happened after US declared a military blockade of Cuba and started dropping depth charges on a Soviet nuclear missile but conventional propulsion submarine in international waters. The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch then to surface and effectively surrender to the US battle group enforcing the blockade. The nuclear war was avoided and the Russian submarine returned to SU without reaching Cuba.

    So let us draw some conclusions about the quality of officer staff of the two potential war opponents. The US officers are not capable of lateral thinking - they only obey orders but only do so when their own lives are not directly threatened. As long as they have military superiority, they will do amazingly stupid things, such as bombing a Soviet nuclear submarine in Inetrnational waters. Not one of them questioned the legality or the wisdom of bombing a nuclear missile and torpedo armed submarine. The Soviets (proxy for Russians) have both similar kind of officers as US, but they also have the lateral thinkers, the Game Theory type thinkers who are capable of supra-human thinking and decision making.

    To make the long story short: instead of being punished for surrendering the submarine, like a US commander would have been, Arkhipov was cited and later became an Admiral of the Soviet Navy.

    But I am personally quite convinced that the US will expect always the surrender of the other side because the quality of its military cadre is abbysimal (West Point and blah, blah), brainwashed drones without a trace of lateral thinking capability. Also, how long can the humanity survive when its survival depends on the psychology and mental capability of a few field commanders in a position to refuse stupid and mad orders?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. turtle says:
    @pyrrhus
    NATO is not likely to get far enough to even get bogged down, and if they did Russian doctrine calls for tactical nukes....Either way, a desperate and unhinged politician like Hillary might be tempted to blow up the world and retire to her bunker...

    I am convinced that “Crooked Hillary” if installed in das Weisshaus, *WILL* use nuclear weapons somewhere in the world, @ sometime in her careen through history, to prove she is “as tough as any man.”
    Problem is, there may be no one left afterwards to write any history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. “If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.”

    I’m told that the Kaise’s favorite bedtime reading was The Golden Age, a novel of glorious childhood by Kenneth (Wind in the Willows) Grahame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @anon
    "If you don't think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm."

    Perhaps the author is giving too credit to Kaiser Wilhelm II . The Great War I was not motivated only by the arrogance of the German monarch. On the other side was the French desire for revenge for the loss of Alsace- Lorraine, and the pathological fear of the British from a loss of its world hegemony. since 1870 , after the unification of Germany , british writers have forgotten that the Hohenzollern had been allies of the British against the Bourbons and Napoleon , and began to fill people's heads with fantasies about a German bogeyman anxious to invade and destroy the poor Brittania . Even if Bismark had stayed longer in power , it would be difficult to avoid the Anglo-French desire for retaliation.

    I cannot agree with the comments made about Kaiser Wilhelm in regards for his desire for war.

    To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.

    Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it as John Keegan describes in his excellent one volume history on the matter.

    The kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but of respect for English naval capabilities. Unfortunately, England, with their “balance of power” doctrines that were also a major factor in starting World War II could not see this and immediately saw the German Kriegsmarine as a threat. Considering that German overseas possessions were quite minor at the time compared to other European powers, one has to wonder exactly what type of threat the Kriegsmarine posed considering that it was hardly planning to attack the English Navy.

    Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict. You can see this in Meyer’s excellent one volume history on the subject, “A World Undone”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.”
     
    Germany’s alliance with rotten Austria-Hungary had just as much (more) to do with it:
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    Note: the first declaration of war is issued by Germany. And the first invasions are launched by Germany:
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium.

    By 16 August Germans had captured Liège; on 25 August they sacked Leuvan, reducing it’s priceless medieval library to ashes, expelled it’s entire population (10,000) after killing 248 souls, and set fire to civilian dwellings (2,000 destroyed). If that’s not “initiating” war, what is?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack, the thinking went, would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Blockheads like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn (probably dreaming of more decorations) willingly led the charge.

    “Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it...”
     
    Poor Willie - he just didn’t try hard enough! Doubtless he really meant well.

    "Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict."
     
    The first to declare war and the first to invade, but the last “to officially enter the conflict?” Welcome to Planet Germania!
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Good comment, Sir!

    As you know, those who think that being the first to declare war or are the first to invade are necessarily the initiators of a given war are guilty of weak and faulty reasoning. As you state, "[Germany] was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances." And that alliance was no doubt partly a result of the economic threat that the imperial colossus Great Britain posed to the French and Russian empires. So it's hard to see how Germany was mostly at fault for the war.



    Regarding WW1, Smedley Butler was correct about who and what really were responsible for it. It was, essentially, a war profiteer's war. The big picture is that several large empires were positioning themselves to dominate the world commercially and were quite open about it e.g., note the blustering of goons such as Cecil Rhodes, Richard Olney and Albert J Beveridge (March of the Flag), to name just three, so who can reasonably blame the Germans or Russians for not wanting to be dominated?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your errors of chronology, already shown up, are perhaps enough. But I would add that your saying the "Kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but [out of] respect for England's naval capabilities" as if that was some sort of defence of the Kaiser or of Germany is mindblowing.

    Let's assume that it wasn't just a case of wanting the same grown up toys as his cousins had. What was Germany going to do with its navy? And what assurance would amyone have that tomorow's German leaders would always treat the navy as just an Imperial toy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. turtle says:

    >MARINES TURN TO GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS TEAMS FOR RECRUITS

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINE_RECRUITING_WOMEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-13-08-59-00

    These are the All Blacks:

    These are the Black Ferns:

    Any questions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @King George III
    Yes.

    What happened to the old civilized sporting traditions?

    Where did they go?

    Why are sports teams now performing ritual primitive tribal war whatever routines?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxYOuTCCwE

    Good God.
    , @Bill Jones
    "Any questions?"

    Yup. Why do women have to fuck around with everything that men do?

    I don't know any men who want to fart around with lace tatting or whatever the hell it is that women do when they get together.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @TheJester
    I agree about (the lack of) US effectiveness in MEA. Not impressive. Indeed, performance is so bad that it spawns rumors and conspiracy theories that the US is/must be on the side of ISIS. And we are also losing the war in Afghanistan against guerilla bands of goat herders.

    With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years. Rack up the two orders of battle and the lack of effectiveness on the part of the coalition is hard to understand.

    Before their operation in Syria, Hussein Obama labeled Russia a second-rate regional power. After their operation in Syria, he labeled it a world power with the second most effective military in the world. I would not want to try to find out who was really first and who was really second.

    “With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years.”

    While I agree with the statement, I just don’t think the U.S. poor performance against ISIS was an example of lack of capability. The U.S. has been using ISIS against Assad in the same way they used the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan. A good example are the miles long convoys of oil tankers loaded with stolen Syrian oil being driven to Turkey so Erdogan’s son can sell the oil on the black market. The stolen oil was a major source of funding for ISIS. The U.S., Turkey and Nato forces all knew about the oil being stolen and that it funded ISIS and they could have easily bombed the convoys but did nothing until Russia started to bomb them. Only then was the U.S. shamed into face saving action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Hippopotamusdrome
    It looks kind of like a low quality copy of the M1A1 (1980). It has metal-ceramic armor, hence the blocky-ness. So they have caught up to what we had in 1980. Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.

    The German high command made similar observations about Soviet armor just before Kursk. The USA’s WW II main battle tank, the Sherman, was grotesquely outclassed by just about any tank the Germans fielded. Somehow or other that overwhelming German technical advantage didn’t play out so well for the Germans.

    The Russian philosophy is build them tough, easily sustainable, with more firepower than the enemy, and in overwhelming numbers; then provide enormous amounts of spare parts and logistic and maintenance support. This philosophy seems to work rather well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. I urge all Americans, of every political persuasion, to unite against war. The American homeland is threatened by Islamism, not the Russians. They don’t want to fight us. We don’t want to fight them. So let’s all agree not to fight. Hell, no, we won’t go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Avery says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    It looks kind of like a low quality copy of the M1A1 (1980). It has metal-ceramic armor, hence the blocky-ness. So they have caught up to what we had in 1980. Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.

    { Typical, using 36-year old technology obtained from reverse-engineering and espionage.}

    [Russia’s New Mega-Missile Stuns the Globe]

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/russia-s-new-mega-missile-stuns-the-globe.html

    {On Oct. 7, Russian warships in the Caspian Sea fired 26 high-tech cruise missiles at rebel targets in Syria—a staggering 1,000 miles away.}
    {What’s particularly striking is that Moscow has been able to build this long-range naval strike capability with much smaller vessels than anyone thought possible. In the U.S. Navy, large destroyers, cruisers, and submarines carry Tomahawk cruise missiles—and those vessels are typically at least 500 feet long and displace as many as 9,000 tons of water.

    The four brand-new warships that launched the SS-N-30s were much, much smaller—ranging in length from 200 to 330 feet and displacing no more than 1,500 tons of water. “Small ships, big firepower,” Wertheim commented.}

    Yep, sure looks like Russians obtained that technology from reverse-engineering and espionage. Since nobody else on Earth has that, they must have stolen it from Martians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. I often disagree with you, Mr. Reed, but this time you’ve hit the bulls eye. We had an incredible opportunity to mitigate hostility with Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Clintons demolished this by inviting Poland into NATO for no discernible reason. A criminal cabal of Clinton-backed Harvard economists and Russian Communist insiders* finished the job by selling off all the Russian peoples’ assets to a small set of Russian oligarchs at bargain basement prices. One reason Putin is so popular is that he at least partially demolished the resulting stranglehold these oligarchs imposed on the Russian economy and polity.

    * I know I’ll be branded an anti-Semite for pointing this out but almost all the American and Russian criminals involved in this scam were Jewish, just like all the goddamned neocons that are now so anxious to start a war with Russia. I can at least understand, if not agree with, the unpatriotic, Israel-first loyalty demonstrated by so many Jewish members of the USA’s establishment. But the anti-Russian animosity of these same people defies my capacity either to understand or to sympathize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @turtle
    >Israel-first loyalty demonstrated by so many Jewish members of the USA’s establishment.

    And why is it that people with high level responsibilities in the U.S. government are allowed to possess dual citizenship?
    The actual second (or third, is there a limit?) country does not matter.
    Whatever the proclivities of the individual, there is at least the potential for a conflict of interest.
    Even at the local political level, politicians routinely recuse themselves on matters in which they are known, or perceived, to have personal interest.

    Nor am I swayed by the argument that (whatever) second country is our "friend and ally."
    It is a known fact that even our great and good ally, Great Britain, has, and most likely continues to, spy on the U.S. I presume the U.S. returns the favor, no matter the public lovey-dovey between the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister.

    So, could a dual U.S.-British citizen become President of the U.S.? And if so, what would be the consequence? How about a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen? Etc.

    Dual U.S.-German citizenship is impossible, because Germany requires people to make a choice.
    I believe we should do the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Mark Green
    Good one, Fred. Entertaining and full of insight. But Fred. Please. Stop repeating the silly falsehood that the Iraq war "was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil". No Fred. Wrong. It was not. Stop saying that. You're mistaken. (Brainwashed?) You're just repeating something you've heard before and this is not like you, Fred. Maintain your originality and skepticism. It's why we love you so.

    Not only did no US oil company ever advocate for a preemptive war on Iraq, but the US government never took oil out of Iraq or exploited its easy access to Iraqi oil during or after the US annihilation of Iraq (2003-present). It simply never happened. This is a myth cooked up by the Chomsky wing of the so-called anti-war movement. The instinctively cover up for the Zionist entity whenever needed. Needless to say, they're very busy.

    As for the oil, it's still there. First it got expensive. Now it's cheaper. Doesn't matter. There's plenty of it and the Arabs are dying to sell it. It's the only way they make money, after all.

    As Saddam Hussein remarked before his untimely lynching: "What do you expect me to do with the oil, drink it?"

    Good point.

    Today, Iraq's oil is being drilled and exported by Iraqis as well as Russians and Chinese. And don't forget ISIS. Or the Kurds.

    On the other hand, virtually all the US major oil companies failed to win their bids to drill in Iraq once hostilities there lessened sufficiently to resume production. So Americans are purchasing Iraqi oil just like everybody else: on the world market. No discount.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that's full of dead people.

    The good news?

    Iraq now poses absolutely no threat to the glorious state of Israel.

    Feel safer?

    Fred Reed is correct, you are incorrect. Oil was one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq.

    Read details here: “Oil from Irak” http://www.g2mil.com/Irak.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Kyle says:
    @The Alarmist

    "Tanks are not important. It’s the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage."
     
    Yep, that's why all the interdictions in MENA are going so swimmingly. More tellingly, the US has the tools for air superiority but it does not have the numbers to project it as broadly and as sustained as Hillary and the Neocons would like to think they can.

    What will most assuredly happen is a few exoatmospheric nuclear detonations above The Homeland so that the vast majority of us will lose our will to fight as we lose the use of our i-Toys and other conveniences of life via EMP. They won't even have to nuke our cities ... in fact, that would be counterproductive. The US would be fighting one, maybe two major enemies whose people live much closer to the dirt, so taking out their infrastructure with EMP will roll off their backs, and nuking their cities in response to a simple EMP attack will be the biggest act of mass murder in history.

    But hey, when Hillary is already arguably a war criminal, what difference will a few hundred milion more lives make at that point.

    I agree air power is futile when every advanced nation has smart missile technology, nukes, and emp. 1 well placed tomahawk with shaped charge sinks a carrier.
    We would never invade Russia, and Russia would never attack us. But imagine if we got into a Vietnam situation in Ukraine. “Ukraine rebels” with a few well placed misses could massacre ground troops, shoot down our fighter jets, and possibly take out a carrier.
    Plus our frogmen wouldn’t stand a chance against their attack dolphins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. turtle says:

    The term “anti-Semite ” as commonly used to mean “anti-Jewish” is itself bigoted, since Arabs are in fact Semitic humans who speak a Semitic language. It implies that Arabs are not human, and that Jews are the the only Semitic “people.”

    I bought a few items at a halal grocery yesterday.
    Many of the patrons (not all, and not I) exhibited stereotypical “Semitic” facial features, and could in fact have been poster boys for the Third German Reich’s campaign of hatred against the Jewish people.
    All so observed were speaking Arabic, not Hebrew.

    “Russian oligarchs” is the media code phrase for the (primarily) Jewish gangsters who got filthy rich at the expense of the Russian people when the Soviet union broke up.

    “Neocons” is the media code word for the (primarily) Jewish confidence men who have attempted to bullsh*t the American people into believing that the foreign policy interests of the U.S. and the foreign policy interests of the State of Israel are identical.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    American foreign policy should be for the benefit of Americans, and only incidentally, if then, for the benefit of other political entities. Not the Saudis, not the Israelis, not the British, not “our (ever-expanding) NATO allies,” etc.

    When (or if) the majority of Americans realize this, matters may improve.
    I am not holding my breath.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. annamaria says:
    @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    “We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand… They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia? …the war is 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.”

    The best overview of the neocon (ziocon) crowd!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. annamaria says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Your warning is not out of place, Fred. However, the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them.

    Of course there is the danger of them getting used. Things do have a way of getting out of hand on occasion.

    But it does not strike me as particularly credible that the American war machine really wants a serious confrontation with a nuclear armed adversary. Because that would involve them, personally.

    “…the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them.”
    The paper warns implicitly that unsupervised imbeciles could use armaments at hand because the imbeciles’ career interests and petty thinking would not allow them to realize the scale of consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Grate Deign
    Anna,

    My intent was to say that, if nukes were used, there could be no escape for anybody involved.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president's name on them. And we planned the same thing for them. Leonid Brezhnev would have a had a succession of warheads detonated right over his supernatural eyebrows.

    The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Biff says:

    The elites don’t want a full on war with Russia. Like Gorden Gecko, they want to break it up, and own it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. avraham says:

    I have heard that some people want to get involved in the conflict with the two east provinces. There is a build up of troops on both sides. Any insights about this?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    that’s all you heard from the ”water cooler” experts in those days, “It’s the Oil of course”. BS!

    The money spent on war, is more than what the oil would have cost to pay for it RETAIL! and, just get the oil, buying it from the people who sit there protecting it and providing it, like f’n usual.

    And another thing for anybody who knows the answer: Aren’t the Oil companies owned up and financialized into Wall Street by now? INOW’s, like most industries, they aren’t really directly in the simple operational mode like old times to make ”profits”, but are hollowed out cash cow fronts, all wound up in what’s called the ”Derivites”.

    Not about Oil, about Power. It is about the basics like who controls everything, and who lives and dies, after all the changes that will be made after destroying what’s left of the old world, with its nation states, and vestiges of cultural or ethnic independent proclivities.

    High on that list would be those patriarcal societies, who survive on hard scrabble lands, and resist the poisonous ”candy” that has laid Americans low. (all the permissiveness driven from Hollywood, etc.).

    Then, pretty soon, Americans will feel the austerity for real, then they will get their wake up call, too Late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. turtle says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    I often disagree with you, Mr. Reed, but this time you've hit the bulls eye. We had an incredible opportunity to mitigate hostility with Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Clintons demolished this by inviting Poland into NATO for no discernible reason. A criminal cabal of Clinton-backed Harvard economists and Russian Communist insiders* finished the job by selling off all the Russian peoples' assets to a small set of Russian oligarchs at bargain basement prices. One reason Putin is so popular is that he at least partially demolished the resulting stranglehold these oligarchs imposed on the Russian economy and polity.

    * I know I'll be branded an anti-Semite for pointing this out but almost all the American and Russian criminals involved in this scam were Jewish, just like all the goddamned neocons that are now so anxious to start a war with Russia. I can at least understand, if not agree with, the unpatriotic, Israel-first loyalty demonstrated by so many Jewish members of the USA's establishment. But the anti-Russian animosity of these same people defies my capacity either to understand or to sympathize.

    >Israel-first loyalty demonstrated by so many Jewish members of the USA’s establishment.

    And why is it that people with high level responsibilities in the U.S. government are allowed to possess dual citizenship?
    The actual second (or third, is there a limit?) country does not matter.
    Whatever the proclivities of the individual, there is at least the potential for a conflict of interest.
    Even at the local political level, politicians routinely recuse themselves on matters in which they are known, or perceived, to have personal interest.

    Nor am I swayed by the argument that (whatever) second country is our “friend and ally.”
    It is a known fact that even our great and good ally, Great Britain, has, and most likely continues to, spy on the U.S. I presume the U.S. returns the favor, no matter the public lovey-dovey between the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister.

    So, could a dual U.S.-British citizen become President of the U.S.? And if so, what would be the consequence? How about a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen? Etc.

    Dual U.S.-German citizenship is impossible, because Germany requires people to make a choice.
    I believe we should do the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. annamaria says:
    @Jason Liu
    What cause do you think would lead America into war with Russia, though? Public opinions sounds very much against any future interventionism or "humanitarian expeditions".

    The only reason I can think of is an America that's threatened by Russia's expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies, but even then I don't think the average person has the stomach for war.

    “…Russia’s expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies…”
    Could you enlighten the readers on how a country can expand nationalism? And why you call the obvious capitalist path, chosen by Russian federation, the “authoritarian ideology?” And the last Q: what countries have been suffering from “Russia’s expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies?” Perhaps you have Syria in mind, but Russian are there on the invitation of Syrian government, unlike the “moderate” terrorists supported by the US/EU/Golf monarchies. (Have you noticed that after Russians came to Syria, ISIS finally has problems?) Or you wanted to tell us something about Saakishvilli adventure in Ossetia? (What is his current citizenship, btw?) Or maybe you had something new to tell about the neo-Nazi-infested Kiev government supported by the US State Dept. on the advice of the leading ziocons? (See the Kagans’ clan – and do not forget to google an Israeli citizen Kolomojsky and his Azov battalion famous for the Odessa auto da fe).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. annamaria says:
    @Priss Factor
    Actually, the Iraq War, Libyan War, Syrian War(via terrorist proxy), and Ukraine War(via coup proxy) were great successes for the GLOB empire.

    The fact that they were failures is success in the eyes of the Zio-GLOB. Those Muslim nations are crippled for a long long time and, like Humpty Dumpty, may never put together again.

    Neocons love it!!

    Indeed, if Iraq had turned into a successful democracy, it might become yet another threat and challenge to Israel. But in ruins, it is just a sad case.

    “The fact that they were failures is success in the eyes of the Zio-GLOB.”
    Unfortunately true. These arrogant fools do not want to think about the consequences of implementation of Yinon plan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Excellent article. Says it all.
    It’s too rational for US elites to understand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. annamaria says:
    @exiled off mainstreet
    This is the crux of the campaign: the Clintons' lunacy threaten our survival. The latest gin up of anti-Russianism to distract attention from the fact the wikileaks proved that the harpy had gained her nomination by fraud is frightening in its implications. Survival "trumps' political correctness every time.

    The more serious consequence of the wikileaks was the divulgence of facts related to Clinton Foundation — evidences of foreign influence on Clinton’ actions that were the payback for large donations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Just asking... What's the evidence for systematic connections between Clinton's decisions as Secretary of State and donations to the Clinton Foundation? Especially what's the csse for saying that important decisions might have been influenced?

    You might disagree with my a priori analysis but I would start with the supposition that the Clinton Foundation is/was not fundamental to the Clintons living the good life - more a provider of champagne and applause. Then I would factor in her ambition and unwillingness to break out of constraints on her total freedom as Sec of State so as to cause adverse comment.

    Guaranteeing someone access, which hardly rises to the level of soft corruption, I would expect. But beyond that? Allowing the rich to buy hope without the slightest intention of giving anything I would expect too. Then there would the slightly more devious "well of course Sir as a foreigner you can't be seen to be a donor to the Secretary's campaign ..... but there is this charitable foundation...".

    Maybe its all public and easily knowable but what the Clintons get out of the foundation personally or in aid of H's political career would interest me. First class travel goes without saying though that mightn't always be colorable as charitable and I would expect the Clintons by now - despite Bill's risktaking temperament - to have a very careful canny lawyer with good PR instincts making sure the foundation is squeaky clean.... But who would be better at knowing what they can get away with than the two old pros themselves....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. annamaria says:
    @Dr Van Nostrand
    Hahaha! Fred Reed- hysterical as usual. Who exactly talks about war with Russia when U.S doesnt even do battle against a limping third rate Russian client state like Syria. Besides this both Hilary and Trump are in Putins pocket. Whoever wins the election this much for sure- Putin has already won.
    Fred as usual is chasing ghosts.

    No, Fred Reed is quite lucid. Whereas your “Putin under my bed” alarm does not seem convincing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Incitatus says:
    @Steve Naidamast
    I cannot agree with the comments made about Kaiser Wilhelm in regards for his desire for war.

    To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.

    Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it as John Keegan describes in his excellent one volume history on the matter.

    The kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but of respect for English naval capabilities. Unfortunately, England, with their "balance of power" doctrines that were also a major factor in starting World War II could not see this and immediately saw the German Kriegsmarine as a threat. Considering that German overseas possessions were quite minor at the time compared to other European powers, one has to wonder exactly what type of threat the Kriegsmarine posed considering that it was hardly planning to attack the English Navy.

    Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict. You can see this in Meyer's excellent one volume history on the subject, "A World Undone"...

    “To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.”

    Germany’s alliance with rotten Austria-Hungary had just as much (more) to do with it:
    • 05 Jul 1914 – Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    Note: the first declaration of war is issued by Germany. And the first invasions are launched by Germany:
    • 02 Aug 1914 – Germany invades Luxembourg;
    • 04 Aug 1914 – Germany invades neutral Belgium.

    By 16 August Germans had captured Liège; on 25 August they sacked Leuvan, reducing it’s priceless medieval library to ashes, expelled it’s entire population (10,000) after killing 248 souls, and set fire to civilian dwellings (2,000 destroyed). If that’s not “initiating” war, what is?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack, the thinking went, would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Blockheads like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn (probably dreaming of more decorations) willingly led the charge.

    “Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it…”

    Poor Willie – he just didn’t try hard enough! Doubtless he really meant well.

    “Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict.”

    The first to declare war and the first to invade, but the last “to officially enter the conflict?” Welcome to Planet Germania!

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    This just in: governments plan for possible wars! Even for a horse, you are stupid.
    , @Ralph Raico
    The key dates in the writer's chronology are:
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable. Revanchist France was tied in a military alliance with expansionist Russia, whose military and civilian leaders looked forward to the demise of Austria-Hungary, scooping up great swathes of its territory, and realizing the old Tsarist dream of capturing Constantinople and the Straits. (Turkey was a German ally.) Faced with a two-front war, Germany's only hope was the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a quick defeat of France, then shuttling the German army east on the excellent German railroad system, and meeting the Russians probably somewhere in eastern Prussia. The plan misfired, and within a very few weeks two vast armies, the German and the French aided by the British Expeditionary Force, confronted each other in what became the Western Front (see Hunt Tooley's excellent study). For the next three and a half years, the Front never changed more than a couple of dozen kilometers in either direction. The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen. Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.
    , @Kiza
    Presenting Germany and Germans as victims of World Wars is a cottage industry now. It is really pointless to try to counter these stupid claims of Anglo-American "historians" that it was all a Russian, French and Serbian fault. The Germans and the British were just innocent victims of "expansionist Russia".

    I am just awaiting an authoritative opinion on the issue of who started WW1 and why by that internationally recognised citizen journalist and historian Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat (a former female lingerie salesman). I am sure he could pass a few photos from WW1 through his software tool and tell us the truth. Or maybe this Steve Naidamast is angling for this position of the citizen-historian, beacause he read one book by a "British historian" (probably more than Higgins).

    Ths is what passes for expertise in the new empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Art says:

    Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders.

    “Rich” insiders – which rich insiders. Who has the money in America – who has the concentrated wealth to control America’s government and media?

    Please – no “Jew” word in this article. It is intellectually dishonest to not mention Jews when discussing the possibility of war between America and Russia – end of story.

    Think about it – we are no longer a free people. We will NEVER be a free people again until we can freely say “Jew.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. 5371 says:
    @Incitatus

    “To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.”
     
    Germany’s alliance with rotten Austria-Hungary had just as much (more) to do with it:
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    Note: the first declaration of war is issued by Germany. And the first invasions are launched by Germany:
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium.

    By 16 August Germans had captured Liège; on 25 August they sacked Leuvan, reducing it’s priceless medieval library to ashes, expelled it’s entire population (10,000) after killing 248 souls, and set fire to civilian dwellings (2,000 destroyed). If that’s not “initiating” war, what is?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack, the thinking went, would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Blockheads like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn (probably dreaming of more decorations) willingly led the charge.

    “Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it...”
     
    Poor Willie - he just didn’t try hard enough! Doubtless he really meant well.

    "Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict."
     
    The first to declare war and the first to invade, but the last “to officially enter the conflict?” Welcome to Planet Germania!

    This just in: governments plan for possible wars! Even for a horse, you are stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “This just in: governments plan for possible wars!”
     
    And if they’re really, really stupid they start wars they don’t win and kill millions, including their own men. That’s about your level of intelligence, Einstein.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. For recent examples, watch this video of Obama’s warmongering Secretary of the Air Force talk about the Russian threat.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5073777409001/secretary-of-the-us-air-force-russia-is-our-biggest-threat/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

    Of course her solution is to demand ever more money, even though her budget is near record highs. The Air Force has problems, all caused by their own General’s incompetence.

    And few Americans are aware that our military has spent billions of dollars in recent years to train with the Ukraine military, including providing them with military equipment. Here are Army links:

    http://www.eur.army.mil/RapidTrident/

    And our Army has reopened two more bases in Germany!

    Why? Have Americans been demanding that we protect Ukraine?

    The only good news is Obama retired that crazed madman General Breedlove who was lusting for war with Russia. His anti-Russian talk was offensive, but leaked e-mails showed him plotting for war, frustrated that others were not enthusiastic.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    One word regarding the ‘air war’. S400.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Incitatus

    “To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.”
     
    Germany’s alliance with rotten Austria-Hungary had just as much (more) to do with it:
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    Note: the first declaration of war is issued by Germany. And the first invasions are launched by Germany:
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium.

    By 16 August Germans had captured Liège; on 25 August they sacked Leuvan, reducing it’s priceless medieval library to ashes, expelled it’s entire population (10,000) after killing 248 souls, and set fire to civilian dwellings (2,000 destroyed). If that’s not “initiating” war, what is?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack, the thinking went, would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Blockheads like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn (probably dreaming of more decorations) willingly led the charge.

    “Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it...”
     
    Poor Willie - he just didn’t try hard enough! Doubtless he really meant well.

    "Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict."
     
    The first to declare war and the first to invade, but the last “to officially enter the conflict?” Welcome to Planet Germania!

    The key dates in the writer’s chronology are:
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable. Revanchist France was tied in a military alliance with expansionist Russia, whose military and civilian leaders looked forward to the demise of Austria-Hungary, scooping up great swathes of its territory, and realizing the old Tsarist dream of capturing Constantinople and the Straits. (Turkey was a German ally.) Faced with a two-front war, Germany’s only hope was the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a quick defeat of France, then shuttling the German army east on the excellent German railroad system, and meeting the Russians probably somewhere in eastern Prussia. The plan misfired, and within a very few weeks two vast armies, the German and the French aided by the British Expeditionary Force, confronted each other in what became the Western Front (see Hunt Tooley’s excellent study). For the next three and a half years, the Front never changed more than a couple of dozen kilometers in either direction. The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen. Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    No question interlocking treaty obligations and alliances were a suicide pact. And Lord knows blockheads in every country were eager to keep it.

    Germany (as Kershaw points out in ‘To Hell and Back’) discarded any option to diffuse the situation and strengthen Austria-Hungary in other ways. Was Serbia such a threat to justify war? Could Habsburg pride have been served without war?

    Germany chose war and attacked: that alone aligned with the long term preemption goal against Russia. No one forced them to declare war and invade, any more than Saddam forced GW Bush to invade Iraq.

    “The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen.”
     
    France alone lost 1,400,000-1,700,000. Of the 8,400,000 French soldiers that served, 76% were kia/wia/mia or taken prisoner.

    Verdun is sobering. 600,000 died there in 1916 (about the same number lost on both sides in US Civil War). Forty years ago one couldn’t tour most of the pitted battlefield: live ordinance and skeletal remains still littered the grounds. 60 years after the battle. Master strategist ‘Meatgrinder’ von Falkenhayn killed as many of his own men as Frenchmen.

    France, scarcely a generation before, suffered 139,000 dead and 143,000 wounded under another moron, Napoleon III. It lost Alsace-Lorraine and paid the largest war indemnity ever (5 billion gold francs) to Germany. Before deadline. Result? Impressionism, the Tour Eiffel, and the epochal 1889 World’s Fair (there’s a great line in The Third Man where Orson Wells compares unstable Renaissance Italy and stable Switzerland - chocolate and cuckoo clocks).

    Germany, the perpetual ‘victim’ of the infamous WW1 Versailles Treaty, never even paid as much as they exacted from France in 1871. Hindenburg and Ludendorf (after passing the baton to civilians on realizing their army was on the verge of mutiny) fabricated the treason myth and ensured WW2. Had Verdun, Liège, Leuvan, the Somme, Reims, or other WW1 battlefields been located in Germany, Hitler may have had a harder time convincing Germans war was an abstract event.

    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”
     
    "What do you expect when I'm between two men - one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919
    , @Stebbing Heuer

    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable.
     
    The Germans knew this, that's why they used Austria-Hungary to provoke Russia into mobilising. It was a way to start the conflagration that they had been preparing for and wanted to happen.

    'The sooner, the better' was the saying among the German general staff.
    , @Kiza
    Aaaah, that special species called the British Historian. Paper has been invented just for the procreation of such species. In their words, the moment somebody mentions a British (English) historian, I switch off. Never in history has more rubbish been written then by this special spicies of humans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Incitatus says:
    @5371
    This just in: governments plan for possible wars! Even for a horse, you are stupid.

    “This just in: governments plan for possible wars!”

    And if they’re really, really stupid they start wars they don’t win and kill millions, including their own men. That’s about your level of intelligence, Einstein.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    'Incitatus', you of all people should know that you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. “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.”

    The men are probably ex-college dormtroopers who spent their time playing Risk or talking about how to rule the world, and women like Hillary who just want to prove that women can be as ruthless as they think most men are. Both are dangerous, and an army made up of mall rats, girls, foreign mercenaries, affirmative action dolts and homo crusaders at their command will be no match for Russian or Chinese soldiers who are likely tougher, more committed and actually care about their country.

    Either way, getting rid of the parasites running the country will cost American blood. The only question is who will be fighting whom, and where.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @Priss Factor
    Tanks are not important. It's the air war that counts, and US has decisive advantage.

    90% of modern war is air war.

    Of course, if you want to occupy a nation, you need men on the ground.
    But just to smash a nation, air power is all you need.

    Israel destroyed the Arabs in 6 Day War bu air campaigns.
    In the Gulf War, Hussein was driven back and subjugated by US's air campaign.

    And US is many times ahead in high-tech and money.

    US cannot conquer Russia, but it can win decisive battles.

    As for manliness, brains beat brawn.

    Does the strong horse control the rider or vice versa?

    Soldiers are tough but ultimately pussy.... because they are weak in mind and serve as running dogs of the GLOB masters.

    Neocons may not be muscle-tough but they are brain tough and control the reins that decide events.

    No matter how big a soldier carries, he is just a pawn of the chess masters.
    In that, they are mentally feeble. Just dogs and horses.

    If I even doubted that you are a Jewish woman, I don’t now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. TG says:

    Kudos – well said.

    Adding to the already long list of the UTTER LUNACY of current American policy, I note that Hillary Clinton and the Neocons ALLIED THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA. You may remember Al Qaeda, the guys that blew up the World Trade center on 9/11? And we gave them supplies and arms etc. to help them overthrow Libya and Syria? This is just so crazy that I think the main reason they get away with it is that it’s so mind-blowingly stupid that the average person just can’t imagine it.

    When someone tells me of something stupid that Trump is reputed to have said, I respond yeah, but Hillary Clinton allied us with Al Qaeda: I mean, not just talk, but she actually went and did it. And the response that I get from people is like a deer in the headlights.

    Oh, and minor point: The Japanese militarists had few illusions of their chances fighting the United States in WWII. it’s just that their government’s pro-natalist population policies had created such massive poverty that without conquering and colonizing a large chunk of asia Japan would have collapsed into chaos. FDR’s oil embargo was the final straw: at that point Tojo had no choice. They hoped that they could grab enough gains early that they could maintain enough defense that the Americans would get tired of it and make a treaty before their greater industrial capacity inevitably defeated the Japanese. The Japanese were not stupid and they knew exactly what they faced. Everything looks inevitable with hindsight, but with a few lucky breaks the Japanese might have pulled that off…

    “The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.” Otto von Bismarck

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. @Steve Naidamast
    I cannot agree with the comments made about Kaiser Wilhelm in regards for his desire for war.

    To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.

    Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it as John Keegan describes in his excellent one volume history on the matter.

    The kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but of respect for English naval capabilities. Unfortunately, England, with their "balance of power" doctrines that were also a major factor in starting World War II could not see this and immediately saw the German Kriegsmarine as a threat. Considering that German overseas possessions were quite minor at the time compared to other European powers, one has to wonder exactly what type of threat the Kriegsmarine posed considering that it was hardly planning to attack the English Navy.

    Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict. You can see this in Meyer's excellent one volume history on the subject, "A World Undone"...

    Good comment, Sir!

    As you know, those who think that being the first to declare war or are the first to invade are necessarily the initiators of a given war are guilty of weak and faulty reasoning. As you state, “[Germany] was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.” And that alliance was no doubt partly a result of the economic threat that the imperial colossus Great Britain posed to the French and Russian empires. So it’s hard to see how Germany was mostly at fault for the war.

    Regarding WW1, Smedley Butler was correct about who and what really were responsible for it. It was, essentially, a war profiteer’s war. The big picture is that several large empires were positioning themselves to dominate the world commercially and were quite open about it e.g., note the blustering of goons such as Cecil Rhodes, Richard Olney and Albert J Beveridge (March of the Flag), to name just three, so who can reasonably blame the Germans or Russians for not wanting to be dominated?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Incitatus says:
    @Ralph Raico
    The key dates in the writer's chronology are:
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable. Revanchist France was tied in a military alliance with expansionist Russia, whose military and civilian leaders looked forward to the demise of Austria-Hungary, scooping up great swathes of its territory, and realizing the old Tsarist dream of capturing Constantinople and the Straits. (Turkey was a German ally.) Faced with a two-front war, Germany's only hope was the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a quick defeat of France, then shuttling the German army east on the excellent German railroad system, and meeting the Russians probably somewhere in eastern Prussia. The plan misfired, and within a very few weeks two vast armies, the German and the French aided by the British Expeditionary Force, confronted each other in what became the Western Front (see Hunt Tooley's excellent study). For the next three and a half years, the Front never changed more than a couple of dozen kilometers in either direction. The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen. Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.

    No question interlocking treaty obligations and alliances were a suicide pact. And Lord knows blockheads in every country were eager to keep it.

    Germany (as Kershaw points out in ‘To Hell and Back’) discarded any option to diffuse the situation and strengthen Austria-Hungary in other ways. Was Serbia such a threat to justify war? Could Habsburg pride have been served without war?

    Germany chose war and attacked: that alone aligned with the long term preemption goal against Russia. No one forced them to declare war and invade, any more than Saddam forced GW Bush to invade Iraq.

    “The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen.”

    France alone lost 1,400,000-1,700,000. Of the 8,400,000 French soldiers that served, 76% were kia/wia/mia or taken prisoner.

    Verdun is sobering. 600,000 died there in 1916 (about the same number lost on both sides in US Civil War). Forty years ago one couldn’t tour most of the pitted battlefield: live ordinance and skeletal remains still littered the grounds. 60 years after the battle. Master strategist ‘Meatgrinder’ von Falkenhayn killed as many of his own men as Frenchmen.

    France, scarcely a generation before, suffered 139,000 dead and 143,000 wounded under another moron, Napoleon III. It lost Alsace-Lorraine and paid the largest war indemnity ever (5 billion gold francs) to Germany. Before deadline. Result? Impressionism, the Tour Eiffel, and the epochal 1889 World’s Fair (there’s a great line in The Third Man where Orson Wells compares unstable Renaissance Italy and stable Switzerland – chocolate and cuckoo clocks).

    Germany, the perpetual ‘victim’ of the infamous WW1 Versailles Treaty, never even paid as much as they exacted from France in 1871. Hindenburg and Ludendorf (after passing the baton to civilians on realizing their army was on the verge of mutiny) fabricated the treason myth and ensured WW2. Had Verdun, Liège, Leuvan, the Somme, Reims, or other WW1 battlefields been located in Germany, Hitler may have had a harder time convincing Germans war was an abstract event.

    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”

    “What do you expect when I’m between two men – one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he’s Jesus Christ? (“Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l’autre Jésus Crist?”).
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus


    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”
     
    “What do you expect when I’m between two men – one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he’s Jesus Christ?
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919
     
    Hate to do this to RobinG, who pointed us to a discussion of Jeffrey Rosen's book on Brandeis, http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-like-groupthink-dominates-both-conventions/#comment-1520627


    I suspect RobinG has since recalled that Alison Weir reported on Brandeis's membership in the Parushim, the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ly75-R5TN8

    In an article reprinted from American Jewish Quarterly, Sarah Schmidt reported:

    The Parushim [ Hebrew for Pharisee and also for separate ] was a very unusual Zionist group, organized both as a secret fraternity and as a reform movement. . . .

    A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship. At the initiation ceremony the head of the Order informed him:

    You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life-dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation... It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

    The initiate responded by swearing:

    Before this council, in the name of all that I hold dear and holy, I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation, . . . and the ideals of the Jewish people.

    To this end I dedicate myself in behalf of the Jews, my people, and in behalf of all mankind.

    To this end I enroll myself in the fellowship of the Parushim. I pledge myself utterly to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims. Amen.
     
    Here's what Rosen said of his Brandeis in a brief interview during the Democratic convention in Phila recently:

    [Interviewer Peter Slen]: Was Brandeis the first Jewish Justice on the Supreme Court?
    Rosen: He was indeed. There was some antisemitism in the opposition to his nomination, but I argue -- He is my hero in every respect. . . . he was also more influential than anyone else in persuading Woodrow Wilson and the British to recognize the Jewish homeland in Palestine. He is a hero, he is a prophet, and it [my book] is a short and passionate case for why Brandeis matters today.
     
    Brandeis was sitting on the US Supreme Court while pledged to pursue the interests of the Jewish people and the zionist project.
    Rosen is director of the US Congress-mandated and initially funded National Constitution Center; his hero is "most important" for having served the Jewish people and the cause of another state.

    Wilson was a fool -- it is because he was a fool that he was selected to run for president. He was easily manipulated if not indeed blackmailed to appoint Brandeis -- a case was made by Benjamin Freedman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c that Sam Untermyer blackmailed Wilson over some love letters of Wilson's, but it's hard to prove that claim since the records are buried in the (U S taxpayer-funded) Woodrow Wilson Center, where only select scholars are permitted access to certain materials at the Center. Jane Harman is director of the Wilson Center.

    In Sarah Schmidt's reporting, above, mention is made of the fact that both men and women can be Parushim, but since the organization is secret, the American people, who pay Harman's salary, cannot know if she is a Parushim.

    Also don't recall if Brandeis accompanied Wilson to Versailles, but know for a fact that Bernard Baruch did.
    Edwin Black wrote in The Transfer Agreement that "Zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of protection of minority rights in Europe."

    Brandeis fulfilled his vows -- to zionist Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Mark Green
    Good one, Fred. Entertaining and full of insight. But Fred. Please. Stop repeating the silly falsehood that the Iraq war "was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil". No Fred. Wrong. It was not. Stop saying that. You're mistaken. (Brainwashed?) You're just repeating something you've heard before and this is not like you, Fred. Maintain your originality and skepticism. It's why we love you so.

    Not only did no US oil company ever advocate for a preemptive war on Iraq, but the US government never took oil out of Iraq or exploited its easy access to Iraqi oil during or after the US annihilation of Iraq (2003-present). It simply never happened. This is a myth cooked up by the Chomsky wing of the so-called anti-war movement. The instinctively cover up for the Zionist entity whenever needed. Needless to say, they're very busy.

    As for the oil, it's still there. First it got expensive. Now it's cheaper. Doesn't matter. There's plenty of it and the Arabs are dying to sell it. It's the only way they make money, after all.

    As Saddam Hussein remarked before his untimely lynching: "What do you expect me to do with the oil, drink it?"

    Good point.

    Today, Iraq's oil is being drilled and exported by Iraqis as well as Russians and Chinese. And don't forget ISIS. Or the Kurds.

    On the other hand, virtually all the US major oil companies failed to win their bids to drill in Iraq once hostilities there lessened sufficiently to resume production. So Americans are purchasing Iraqi oil just like everybody else: on the world market. No discount.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that's full of dead people.

    The good news?

    Iraq now poses absolutely no threat to the glorious state of Israel.

    Feel safer?

    Just because the US oil companies failed to steal the Iraqi’s oil doesn’t mean that wasn’t the plan.
    As someone pointed out elsewhere today, in competence and malice are not mutually exclusive.

    The oil companies were drawing up plans for oil as early as Bush the Lesser’s first cabinet meeting in Jan 2001
    See:https://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1471217898&sr=8-1&keywords=Paul+O%27Neill

    and this snippet

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/12/usa.books

    “Oil contracts
    He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled “Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” which, he said, talks about carving the country’s fuel reserves up between the world’s oil companies. It talks about contractors around the world from … 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq,” Mr Suskind said. “

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @turtle
    >MARINES TURN TO GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS TEAMS FOR RECRUITS
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINE_RECRUITING_WOMEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-13-08-59-00

    These are the All Blacks:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptTeyYShdw

    These are the Black Ferns:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbEFiMKOv8

    Any questions?

    Yes.

    What happened to the old civilized sporting traditions?

    Where did they go?

    Why are sports teams now performing ritual primitive tribal war whatever routines?

    Good God.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    At the DNC, the 4-star general showed that homomania and diversity can be used to justify US militarism and imperialism to all those Progs. US military and war-mongering are ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ because it’s got trannies and some guys with rags on their heads.

    And it also appeals to all those moron Cons for whom US military is like a religion. Support the Troops!!

    Starship Troopers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I am impressed Fred but still have a niggling feeling that i don't know some critical facts underlying your case. Where can I find evidence that Hillary, or those she relies on for advice, has the remotest interest in risking a war with Russia, let alone actively seeking one?

    On drugs again, wizard? You got yo kick that nasty, brain killing habit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You are displaying symptoms again though possibly more relating to personality than mental order.

    Still your therapist would probably agree with priest or pastor that letting out a stream of pure malice when totally unrelated to and unjustified by what you are purporting to reply to is most unproductive and especially worrying.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Incitatus
    No question interlocking treaty obligations and alliances were a suicide pact. And Lord knows blockheads in every country were eager to keep it.

    Germany (as Kershaw points out in ‘To Hell and Back’) discarded any option to diffuse the situation and strengthen Austria-Hungary in other ways. Was Serbia such a threat to justify war? Could Habsburg pride have been served without war?

    Germany chose war and attacked: that alone aligned with the long term preemption goal against Russia. No one forced them to declare war and invade, any more than Saddam forced GW Bush to invade Iraq.

    “The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen.”
     
    France alone lost 1,400,000-1,700,000. Of the 8,400,000 French soldiers that served, 76% were kia/wia/mia or taken prisoner.

    Verdun is sobering. 600,000 died there in 1916 (about the same number lost on both sides in US Civil War). Forty years ago one couldn’t tour most of the pitted battlefield: live ordinance and skeletal remains still littered the grounds. 60 years after the battle. Master strategist ‘Meatgrinder’ von Falkenhayn killed as many of his own men as Frenchmen.

    France, scarcely a generation before, suffered 139,000 dead and 143,000 wounded under another moron, Napoleon III. It lost Alsace-Lorraine and paid the largest war indemnity ever (5 billion gold francs) to Germany. Before deadline. Result? Impressionism, the Tour Eiffel, and the epochal 1889 World’s Fair (there’s a great line in The Third Man where Orson Wells compares unstable Renaissance Italy and stable Switzerland - chocolate and cuckoo clocks).

    Germany, the perpetual ‘victim’ of the infamous WW1 Versailles Treaty, never even paid as much as they exacted from France in 1871. Hindenburg and Ludendorf (after passing the baton to civilians on realizing their army was on the verge of mutiny) fabricated the treason myth and ensured WW2. Had Verdun, Liège, Leuvan, the Somme, Reims, or other WW1 battlefields been located in Germany, Hitler may have had a harder time convincing Germans war was an abstract event.

    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”
     
    "What do you expect when I'm between two men - one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919

    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”

    “What do you expect when I’m between two men – one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he’s Jesus Christ?
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919

    Hate to do this to RobinG, who pointed us to a discussion of Jeffrey Rosen’s book on Brandeis, http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-like-groupthink-dominates-both-conventions/#comment-1520627

    I suspect RobinG has since recalled that Alison Weir reported on Brandeis’s membership in the Parushim, the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ly75-R5TN8

    In an article reprinted from American Jewish Quarterly, Sarah Schmidt reported:

    The Parushim [ Hebrew for Pharisee and also for separate ] was a very unusual Zionist group, organized both as a secret fraternity and as a reform movement. . . .

    A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship. At the initiation ceremony the head of the Order informed him:

    You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life-dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation... It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

    The initiate responded by swearing:

    Before this council, in the name of all that I hold dear and holy, I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation, . . . and the ideals of the Jewish people.

    To this end I dedicate myself in behalf of the Jews, my people, and in behalf of all mankind.

    To this end I enroll myself in the fellowship of the Parushim. I pledge myself utterly to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims. Amen.

    Here’s what Rosen said of his Brandeis in a brief interview during the Democratic convention in Phila recently:

    [Interviewer Peter Slen]: Was Brandeis the first Jewish Justice on the Supreme Court?
    Rosen: He was indeed. There was some antisemitism in the opposition to his nomination, but I argue — He is my hero in every respect. . . . he was also more influential than anyone else in persuading Woodrow Wilson and the British to recognize the Jewish homeland in Palestine. He is a hero, he is a prophet, and it [my book] is a short and passionate case for why Brandeis matters today.

    Brandeis was sitting on the US Supreme Court while pledged to pursue the interests of the Jewish people and the zionist project.
    Rosen is director of the US Congress-mandated and initially funded National Constitution Center; his hero is “most important” for having served the Jewish people and the cause of another state.

    Wilson was a fool — it is because he was a fool that he was selected to run for president. He was easily manipulated if not indeed blackmailed to appoint Brandeis — a case was made by Benjamin Freedman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c that Sam Untermyer blackmailed Wilson over some love letters of Wilson’s, but it’s hard to prove that claim since the records are buried in the (U S taxpayer-funded) Woodrow Wilson Center, where only select scholars are permitted access to certain materials at the Center. Jane Harman is director of the Wilson Center.

    In Sarah Schmidt’s reporting, above, mention is made of the fact that both men and women can be Parushim, but since the organization is secret, the American people, who pay Harman’s salary, cannot know if she is a Parushim.

    Also don’t recall if Brandeis accompanied Wilson to Versailles, but know for a fact that Bernard Baruch did.
    Edwin Black wrote in The Transfer Agreement that “Zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of protection of minority rights in Europe.”

    Brandeis fulfilled his vows — to zionist Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    I distrust clergymen and their sons, including Wilson. Not to mention poly-sci PhDs. Too often they meddle in everyone else's business without properly conducting their own affairs.

    I’m not sure he was as much of puppet as you suggest (at least before wife Edith took the wheel), but I’m no expert.

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @turtle
    >MARINES TURN TO GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS TEAMS FOR RECRUITS
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINE_RECRUITING_WOMEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-13-08-59-00

    These are the All Blacks:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptTeyYShdw

    These are the Black Ferns:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbEFiMKOv8

    Any questions?

    “Any questions?”

    Yup. Why do women have to fuck around with everything that men do?

    I don’t know any men who want to fart around with lace tatting or whatever the hell it is that women do when they get together.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    {including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.}

    unlike IC/transistors, vacuum tube is immune EMP.

    Hello Avery, vacuum tube is not immune, but the amount of EMP energy to diasable it (burn through it) is several orders of magnitude higher. In other words, unless such device was in the immediate zone of a nuclear explosion, it would be likely to survive and continue functioning. In fact, one could clearly state that miniaturisation is the greatest enemy of survivability in the EMP environment – large transistors have a better chance of surviving than highly integrated CPUs. Thus, your smart phone would die before the dumb cellular phone. The grand-father of transistor technology, the vacuum tube, is the equivalent of a Mercedes car in car crashes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Ralph Raico
    The key dates in the writer's chronology are:
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable. Revanchist France was tied in a military alliance with expansionist Russia, whose military and civilian leaders looked forward to the demise of Austria-Hungary, scooping up great swathes of its territory, and realizing the old Tsarist dream of capturing Constantinople and the Straits. (Turkey was a German ally.) Faced with a two-front war, Germany's only hope was the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a quick defeat of France, then shuttling the German army east on the excellent German railroad system, and meeting the Russians probably somewhere in eastern Prussia. The plan misfired, and within a very few weeks two vast armies, the German and the French aided by the British Expeditionary Force, confronted each other in what became the Western Front (see Hunt Tooley's excellent study). For the next three and a half years, the Front never changed more than a couple of dozen kilometers in either direction. The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen. Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.

    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable.

    The Germans knew this, that’s why they used Austria-Hungary to provoke Russia into mobilising. It was a way to start the conflagration that they had been preparing for and wanted to happen.

    ‘The sooner, the better’ was the saying among the German general staff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Incitatus

    “This just in: governments plan for possible wars!”
     
    And if they’re really, really stupid they start wars they don’t win and kill millions, including their own men. That’s about your level of intelligence, Einstein.

    ‘Incitatus’, you of all people should know that you can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Point taken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Mark Green
    Good one, Fred. Entertaining and full of insight. But Fred. Please. Stop repeating the silly falsehood that the Iraq war "was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil". No Fred. Wrong. It was not. Stop saying that. You're mistaken. (Brainwashed?) You're just repeating something you've heard before and this is not like you, Fred. Maintain your originality and skepticism. It's why we love you so.

    Not only did no US oil company ever advocate for a preemptive war on Iraq, but the US government never took oil out of Iraq or exploited its easy access to Iraqi oil during or after the US annihilation of Iraq (2003-present). It simply never happened. This is a myth cooked up by the Chomsky wing of the so-called anti-war movement. The instinctively cover up for the Zionist entity whenever needed. Needless to say, they're very busy.

    As for the oil, it's still there. First it got expensive. Now it's cheaper. Doesn't matter. There's plenty of it and the Arabs are dying to sell it. It's the only way they make money, after all.

    As Saddam Hussein remarked before his untimely lynching: "What do you expect me to do with the oil, drink it?"

    Good point.

    Today, Iraq's oil is being drilled and exported by Iraqis as well as Russians and Chinese. And don't forget ISIS. Or the Kurds.

    On the other hand, virtually all the US major oil companies failed to win their bids to drill in Iraq once hostilities there lessened sufficiently to resume production. So Americans are purchasing Iraqi oil just like everybody else: on the world market. No discount.

    Meanwhile, the US taxpayer squandered over one trillion dollars reducing Iraq to a pitiful, divided, squabbling failed state that's full of dead people.

    The good news?

    Iraq now poses absolutely no threat to the glorious state of Israel.

    Feel safer?

    Iraq was invaded as part of a larger plan to encircle Iran, the prime enemy of Israel.

    Iraq was invaded on the western end of Iran, and Afghanistan was invaded on the eastern end of Iran, effectively surrounding Iran.

    The strategy was to defeat Iranian SCUD missiles launched at Israel in the short flight time they needed to reach Israel.

    Anti-ballistic missile counter-measures are most effective in the boost phase of a targeted SCUD missile, and proximity of an ABM to a target SCUD launch origin enhances the chance of a SCUD shoot down.

    Hence, American-Israeli ABMs are now located on the eastern border of Iraq and western border of Afghanistan, and both aimed at Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Words have meanings even if fuzzy ones. When you say "encircle" and "surround" I have to ask whether you have looked at a map.

    Then there are the "American-Israeli ABMs"! What? Israeli military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if there were why would missile systems be placed on the borders with Iran in either case?

    From Afghanistan the ABM would have to start behind the SCUDs and overtake them. If the ABMs in Iraq were on the eastern border wouldn't they be too close for intercepting Iranian missiles fired from just the other side of the border. Sounds like nonsense to me. Where do you get such stuff?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Kiza says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Fred did not discuss who has the better propaganda weapons.

    imo USA wins that war, hands down. Since pre-WWI USA has had means of turning the masses on and off, at will, via print, then radio, then tv, then Hollywood, now all-of-the-above plus what is oxymoronically called social media. in my grossly inexpert opinion, USA (with a little help from its pariah-state friends) has full spectrum dominance over the propaganda field. globally.

    Fred carps about elites who would go to war, but what about the mf ers who "volunteer" to fight?
    No fighters, no war.
    If ever there was a reason for, a demand for a mass walk-out, it centers on US military: US military fighters need to pick their manhood up and put their weapons down and say, I ain't gonna do your killing for you.

    a. They are not "volunteers," they are employees.

    b. They applied for the job, they were not coerced to take the job. Hitler didn't make them do it.

    c. The job is to kill and destroy. Didn't Nuremberg direct that "I was just following orders" is not a defense? Doesn't every human being have moral agency? Are soldiers, even wimmen and LGBTs sorta human, therefore are they not required by what we used to call natural law to make moral decisions and not do evil shit like kill other people for no good reason?

    If one studies the famos but misinterpreted case from the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Russian submarine commander Arkhipov one comes with interesting insights about Soviet and US military psychology.

    The incident happened after US declared a military blockade of Cuba and started dropping depth charges on a Soviet nuclear missile but conventional propulsion submarine in international waters. The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch then to surface and effectively surrender to the US battle group enforcing the blockade. The nuclear war was avoided and the Russian submarine returned to SU without reaching Cuba.

    So let us draw some conclusions about the quality of officer staff of the two potential war opponents. The US officers are not capable of lateral thinking – they only obey orders but only do so when their own lives are not directly threatened. As long as they have military superiority, they will do amazingly stupid things, such as bombing a Soviet nuclear submarine in Inetrnational waters. Not one of them questioned the legality or the wisdom of bombing a nuclear missile and torpedo armed submarine. The Soviets (proxy for Russians) have both similar kind of officers as US, but they also have the lateral thinkers, the Game Theory type thinkers who are capable of supra-human thinking and decision making.

    To make the long story short: instead of being punished for surrendering the submarine, like a US commander would have been, Arkhipov was cited and later became an Admiral of the Soviet Navy.

    But I am personally quite convinced that the US will expect always the surrender of the other side because the quality of its military cadre is abbysimal (West Point and blah, blah), brainwashed drones without a trace of lateral thinking capability. Also, how long can the humanity survive when its survival depends on the psychology and mental capability of a few field commanders in a position to refuse stupid and mad orders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch....}

    I may be mistaken, but Arkhipov was not the commander, although as you wrote, he was one of the three officers authorized to vote to launch.
    From my memory, the commander of the sub and the other officer wanted to launch, but Arkhipov refused to cast a "Yes" vote, despite tremendous pressure from the other two. Apparently the rule was that the vote had to be unanimous to launch. A very good thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @Kiza
    On drugs again, wizard? You got yo kick that nasty, brain killing habit.

    You are displaying symptoms again though possibly more relating to personality than mental order.

    Still your therapist would probably agree with priest or pastor that letting out a stream of pure malice when totally unrelated to and unjustified by what you are purporting to reply to is most unproductive and especially worrying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I've had reason to threaten your outing before WOz. Now this is getting close to a last warning.

    Do you really want to have to explain why you are spending time on even reading garbage?

    If you think someone is unemployed and clinically depressed are you sure you want to be responsible for the effect that saying so may have on them?
    , @Kiza
    Your anti-drug therapist should be medically deregustered for professional misconduct. Even after years at unz.com you still keep dropping bombs of your knowledge of politics from outer space, asking for proof that Hillary is a war candidate. Is she? As US and Canadian people say: do bears sh** in the woods? No, the Wizzard says they sh** on ceramic toilets, you have to prove to him that they do it in the forest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @5371
    [Kaiser and his generals egged the Austrians on to making war on Serbia]

    You might with exactly as much, or as little justice, accuse Russia of egging on Serbia to not comply with the Austrian ultimatum, or the French of egging on the Russians to thus egg on the Serbs. But then the whole Fritz Fischer school of historiography has never amounted to anything but this kind of silly double standards.

    From Hajo Holborn’s introduction to the English-language edition Fischer’s ‘Germany’s Aims in the First World War’:

    Fischer places the chief responsibility for the start of the war squarely on the shoulders of the imperial German government.

    Outside of Germany this has been the predominant view among historians for some time. First presented by Bernadotte Schmitt and Pierre Renouvin it originally had to contend with opinions which came closer to the German position that all the great powers or at least Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany – in that order – were to blame for the conflict. The two-volume work of the Italian Luigi Albertini on the origins of World War I, translated into English in 1952, did much to crystallize the judgment of the non-German historians around the conviction that the chief responsibility for plunging Europe into war rested with the German government. Fritz Fischer’s treatment, while adding some interesting new details, conforms in general to Albertini’s narrative.

    Fischer’s ‘interesting new details’ came from his and his students’ labouring in the German government’s archives. But as Holborn says, he didn’t propose the hypothesis.

    I recall (I can’t remember where, I’m afraid), one English historian, possibly Liddell-Hart or AJP Taylor, saying that he didn’t know what all the fuss was about when Fischer’s book came out: Fischer’s conclusions, regarding German culpability for starting the war, were largely the same as the long-established conclusions of historians in the rest of the world.

    So much for the whole ‘Fritz Fischer school of historiography’ not amounting to much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have a sidelight to shine on the German attitude to the outbreak of WW1.

    When staying with an elderly member of old (minor) German nobility who had been captured in 1914 in France and spent the war as a POW becoming roundly educated I heard him reprove a young German with the remark that the the German breach of Belgium's guaranteed neutrality was not something the British would have done! (The British had indeed been going soft though Gandhi no doubt observed enough in South Africa to be less than wholly surprised by the Amritsar Massacre. Come to think of it.... Black and Tans.... Mau Mau emergency. Well, perhaps they didn't breach treaties... and after all they had an existing empire to run).
    , @5371
    All you managed was an appeal to authority, unlikely to convince anyone who thinks about how that particular authority came to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Kiza says:
    @Cletus Rothschild
    "Russia has good hardware on their jets, but they lag in high-tech software.

    "US jets got google and apple high-tech apps."

    When I was in the air force 35 years ago, we used to joke about how we captured a MIG fighter and discovered vacuum tube technology inside. Pathetic! Until I read later that there were a lot of valid reasons that the Soviets had for using that technology in key places, including dependability, reliability and ease of repair.

    Rest assured that the top military brass knew (were told by the military scientists) why the vacuume tubes were there, but they let the brainwashing propaganda wash over their own troops, to give them that important but false sense of unchallengeable superiority. Information war is always fought internally even more than externally. This is relevant today even more than “35 years ago”. This is the same reason why young people, 16-18 year olds, are preferred soldiers – manipulability.

    But your story is an excellent example of the meaning of discussions on “military superiority”. My nation, almost constantly at war against invaders for centuries has a simple saying: wars are not won by armaments then by strength of heart of ordinary soldiers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    If one studies the famos but misinterpreted case from the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Russian submarine commander Arkhipov one comes with interesting insights about Soviet and US military psychology.

    The incident happened after US declared a military blockade of Cuba and started dropping depth charges on a Soviet nuclear missile but conventional propulsion submarine in international waters. The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch then to surface and effectively surrender to the US battle group enforcing the blockade. The nuclear war was avoided and the Russian submarine returned to SU without reaching Cuba.

    So let us draw some conclusions about the quality of officer staff of the two potential war opponents. The US officers are not capable of lateral thinking - they only obey orders but only do so when their own lives are not directly threatened. As long as they have military superiority, they will do amazingly stupid things, such as bombing a Soviet nuclear submarine in Inetrnational waters. Not one of them questioned the legality or the wisdom of bombing a nuclear missile and torpedo armed submarine. The Soviets (proxy for Russians) have both similar kind of officers as US, but they also have the lateral thinkers, the Game Theory type thinkers who are capable of supra-human thinking and decision making.

    To make the long story short: instead of being punished for surrendering the submarine, like a US commander would have been, Arkhipov was cited and later became an Admiral of the Soviet Navy.

    But I am personally quite convinced that the US will expect always the surrender of the other side because the quality of its military cadre is abbysimal (West Point and blah, blah), brainwashed drones without a trace of lateral thinking capability. Also, how long can the humanity survive when its survival depends on the psychology and mental capability of a few field commanders in a position to refuse stupid and mad orders?

    {The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch….}

    I may be mistaken, but Arkhipov was not the commander, although as you wrote, he was one of the three officers authorized to vote to launch.
    From my memory, the commander of the sub and the other officer wanted to launch, but Arkhipov refused to cast a “Yes” vote, despite tremendous pressure from the other two. Apparently the rule was that the vote had to be unanimous to launch. A very good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    This is a side point, but yes. Arkhipov was not the commander of the submarine bombed by the US Navy, he was a commander of another submarine but he was added to this critical mission as an additional officer, equal in rank to the submarine commander in charge. The problems was that the nuclear missile and torpedo submarine in question was disel-electric, noisy and incapable of hiding underwater for a longer time. The bombing of the this submarine was such a mad act that the whole crew thought that the nuclear war has started already, maybe the SU did not exist any more and that the US Navy was just finishing the job (mopping up) by destroying the left-over Soviet forces, such is their submarine. Could you even imagine the underwater discussion when they thought that their world is probably gone? Send a nuclear torpedo up the aircraft carrier's tail pipe or not?

    I am not sure that the decision had to be unanimous, especially because the military regulations would not have been likely to cover the situation of three officers on board, when the normal complement is two. In other words, it would have been sufficient to have a unanimous decision by the two who wanted to launch the torpedo. But, apparently, commander Arkhipov was an almost legendary Soviet sailor, due to his actions during a catastrophe on a Rusian nuclear powered submarine, where his organisational skills, quick thinking and bravery saved the majority of the crew and the world from a possible reactor explosion. This informal authority gave him the power to counter-balance the decision of the two officers authorised to make the decision. Just consider that it was the commander of the submarine who was responsible for the property and the crew well-being, not Arhkipov. If it were some other personality and not this maritime legend, the submarine commander could have assigned him to quarters under guard and launched the torpedo.
    , @avraham
    There were more than a few such incidents in which individual soviet soldier decided not to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, though the circumstances warranted it. I think there were occasions in which the officer involved was demoted. There also was caution on the side of the USA. Eisenhower was being urged to launch a nuclear strike against the USSR by the secretary of the Navy an instead decided to begin the U-2 program to see what the Soviets were up to. That showed him that in fact the Russian were not preparing any kind of invasion or launching of missiles. My Dad was the leader of one the teams that developed the cameras for the U-2.
    , @Athos
    Only the agreement of 2 was needed. And Akhipov was not in the crew of that ship. He was there by accident but was a greater patent than the other 2. He was commander of the fleet or something like that.

    Was just lucky he was there....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Wizard of Oz
    You are displaying symptoms again though possibly more relating to personality than mental order.

    Still your therapist would probably agree with priest or pastor that letting out a stream of pure malice when totally unrelated to and unjustified by what you are purporting to reply to is most unproductive and especially worrying.

    I’ve had reason to threaten your outing before WOz. Now this is getting close to a last warning.

    Do you really want to have to explain why you are spending time on even reading garbage?

    If you think someone is unemployed and clinically depressed are you sure you want to be responsible for the effect that saying so may have on them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Not only on drugs, but a multiple personalities disorder (with "oz" in everything). unz.com is becoming a treasure trove for psychiatrists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Kiza says:
    @Ralph Raico
    The key dates in the writer's chronology are:
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    As Christopher Clark shows in his magisterial work on the origins of the Great War, The Sleepwalkers (2013), it was Russian general mobilization, which the poor doomed Tsar reluctantly agreed to, that made the European war inevitable. Revanchist France was tied in a military alliance with expansionist Russia, whose military and civilian leaders looked forward to the demise of Austria-Hungary, scooping up great swathes of its territory, and realizing the old Tsarist dream of capturing Constantinople and the Straits. (Turkey was a German ally.) Faced with a two-front war, Germany's only hope was the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a quick defeat of France, then shuttling the German army east on the excellent German railroad system, and meeting the Russians probably somewhere in eastern Prussia. The plan misfired, and within a very few weeks two vast armies, the German and the French aided by the British Expeditionary Force, confronted each other in what became the Western Front (see Hunt Tooley's excellent study). For the next three and a half years, the Front never changed more than a couple of dozen kilometers in either direction. The murderous Western Front ate up the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Frenchmen, Germans, and Englishmen. Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.

    Aaaah, that special species called the British Historian. Paper has been invented just for the procreation of such species. In their words, the moment somebody mentions a British (English) historian, I switch off. Never in history has more rubbish been written then by this special spicies of humans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You are displaying symptoms again though possibly more relating to personality than mental order.

    Still your therapist would probably agree with priest or pastor that letting out a stream of pure malice when totally unrelated to and unjustified by what you are purporting to reply to is most unproductive and especially worrying.

    Your anti-drug therapist should be medically deregustered for professional misconduct. Even after years at unz.com you still keep dropping bombs of your knowledge of politics from outer space, asking for proof that Hillary is a war candidate. Is she? As US and Canadian people say: do bears sh** in the woods? No, the Wizzard says they sh** on ceramic toilets, you have to prove to him that they do it in the forest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You are intellectually crude. I noted that Fred was making a lot of assumptions and sought to find out what they were, precisely, and what he relied on for forming his opinion about her willingness to go to war or risk war with Russia.

    To say someone is a "war candidate" is so uninformative when nuance and detail is required as to be effectively stupid.

    If it is all so obvious to you and you wish to win arguments you should be able, for starters to rattle off the time, place, circumstances and content of any statements by Clinton that constitute belligerence amounting to threat of force against any nation or even abstractions like terrorism or axes of evil. You should be able to do the same for those you say she relies on for advice - or at least gives privileged access to - and give an adequate account of the connection she has with them and the reasons for believing that they have this or that degree of influence over her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Stebbing Heuer
    From Hajo Holborn's introduction to the English-language edition Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War':

    Fischer places the chief responsibility for the start of the war squarely on the shoulders of the imperial German government.

    Outside of Germany this has been the predominant view among historians for some time. First presented by Bernadotte Schmitt and Pierre Renouvin it originally had to contend with opinions which came closer to the German position that all the great powers or at least Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany - in that order - were to blame for the conflict. The two-volume work of the Italian Luigi Albertini on the origins of World War I, translated into English in 1952, did much to crystallize the judgment of the non-German historians around the conviction that the chief responsibility for plunging Europe into war rested with the German government. Fritz Fischer's treatment, while adding some interesting new details, conforms in general to Albertini's narrative.
     
    Fischer's 'interesting new details' came from his and his students' labouring in the German government's archives. But as Holborn says, he didn't propose the hypothesis.

    I recall (I can't remember where, I'm afraid), one English historian, possibly Liddell-Hart or AJP Taylor, saying that he didn't know what all the fuss was about when Fischer's book came out: Fischer's conclusions, regarding German culpability for starting the war, were largely the same as the long-established conclusions of historians in the rest of the world.

    So much for the whole 'Fritz Fischer school of historiography' not amounting to much.

    I have a sidelight to shine on the German attitude to the outbreak of WW1.

    When staying with an elderly member of old (minor) German nobility who had been captured in 1914 in France and spent the war as a POW becoming roundly educated I heard him reprove a young German with the remark that the the German breach of Belgium’s guaranteed neutrality was not something the British would have done! (The British had indeed been going soft though Gandhi no doubt observed enough in South Africa to be less than wholly surprised by the Amritsar Massacre. Come to think of it…. Black and Tans…. Mau Mau emergency. Well, perhaps they didn’t breach treaties… and after all they had an existing empire to run).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Better at risk management and the diplomatic game. The American Revolutionary War was the last time the British ever screwed up like the Germans did in 1914.

    They managed to get France, Spain, and the Netherlands all fighting them at the same time as the Americans rebelled, with Russia and Austria maintaining a neutrality favorable to their enemies.

    The British, to their credit, actually learned from this disaster and never repeated it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Kiza
    Your anti-drug therapist should be medically deregustered for professional misconduct. Even after years at unz.com you still keep dropping bombs of your knowledge of politics from outer space, asking for proof that Hillary is a war candidate. Is she? As US and Canadian people say: do bears sh** in the woods? No, the Wizzard says they sh** on ceramic toilets, you have to prove to him that they do it in the forest.

    You are intellectually crude. I noted that Fred was making a lot of assumptions and sought to find out what they were, precisely, and what he relied on for forming his opinion about her willingness to go to war or risk war with Russia.

    To say someone is a “war candidate” is so uninformative when nuance and detail is required as to be effectively stupid.

    If it is all so obvious to you and you wish to win arguments you should be able, for starters to rattle off the time, place, circumstances and content of any statements by Clinton that constitute belligerence amounting to threat of force against any nation or even abstractions like terrorism or axes of evil. You should be able to do the same for those you say she relies on for advice – or at least gives privileged access to – and give an adequate account of the connection she has with them and the reasons for believing that they have this or that degree of influence over her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yeah, Kiza, none of your "sky is blue" blustering: the Whiz won't have it. Get out your spectrometer and be prepared to document not only that Richard Feynman said that the sky was blue but also that Richard Feynman really is Richard Feynman. Also, not everyone agrees that Dicky was actually a physicist, so be sure to get on that one as well. And how do we really know that Richard Feynman and Richard Nixon were different people? They're both tricky and Dicky, right? Also, those wiggly arrow things Feynman was always drawing look pretty good on napkins. Like hotel napkins. The Watergate is a hotel. There's a lot of work for you to do here, so you'd best get busy. You don't have anything more important to do than chase down these details for Whizzy, right? Shouldn't take any time really. I mean, no reasonable person could "know" the sky is blue without having all of Feynman's biographical details right to hand, yes? Wait . . . one of them was a Quaker and the other one was a whaddayacallit thing. That helps, right? Quakers and those other ones, they're different, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Kiza says:
    @Incitatus

    “To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.”
     
    Germany’s alliance with rotten Austria-Hungary had just as much (more) to do with it:
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    Note: the first declaration of war is issued by Germany. And the first invasions are launched by Germany:
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium.

    By 16 August Germans had captured Liège; on 25 August they sacked Leuvan, reducing it’s priceless medieval library to ashes, expelled it’s entire population (10,000) after killing 248 souls, and set fire to civilian dwellings (2,000 destroyed). If that’s not “initiating” war, what is?

    Helmuth von Moltke advocated offensive war as early as 1912. Preemptive attack, the thinking went, would (with the Schlieffen Plan) neutralize France and allow turning east to defeat Russia before the latter could rearm. Serbia gave them the perfect excuse. Blockheads like von Moltke, von Hindenburg, Ludendorf, and von Falkenhayn (probably dreaming of more decorations) willingly led the charge.

    “Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it...”
     
    Poor Willie - he just didn’t try hard enough! Doubtless he really meant well.

    "Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict."
     
    The first to declare war and the first to invade, but the last “to officially enter the conflict?” Welcome to Planet Germania!

    Presenting Germany and Germans as victims of World Wars is a cottage industry now. It is really pointless to try to counter these stupid claims of Anglo-American “historians” that it was all a Russian, French and Serbian fault. The Germans and the British were just innocent victims of “expansionist Russia”.

    I am just awaiting an authoritative opinion on the issue of who started WW1 and why by that internationally recognised citizen journalist and historian Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat (a former female lingerie salesman). I am sure he could pass a few photos from WW1 through his software tool and tell us the truth. Or maybe this Steve Naidamast is angling for this position of the citizen-historian, beacause he read one book by a “British historian” (probably more than Higgins).

    Ths is what passes for expertise in the new empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Gawd, it’s hard to believe that a hundred years after the fact, some mule-brained asses still can’t get over blaming Germany primarily. Sheesh!

    Yet...

    “…many educated Americans remembered the great revisionist controversies of the twenties and thirties. In the immediate wake of the first war, a number of American historians produced histories demonstrating that the Germans were hardly the only power to deserve blame for the coming of the war. These “revisionists” — Sidney B. Fay, Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, H.C. Engelbrecht and Bernie Hanighen, and others — revised much of the received history put out by the Entente governments and the patriotic historians who supported the party line. “

    https://mises.org/library/world-war-i-our-minds-historical-view

     

    Get a grip, will ya?
    , @Incitatus
    I agree on the revisionism. Everybody needs to sell books, after all, and controversy is a good draw. But now it’s almost as if Lord Londonderry sprang back to life. Few Germans push the agenda (Nemesis having amply punished Hubris).

    Don’t get me wrong: I would’ve starved long ago as a historian. I simply think countries that declare war and aggressively invade neighbors (especially neutrals) should get at least 51% of the blame.

    Thanks for the tip on Eliot Higgins. It helps explain the stellar reporting on Ghouta (apostates Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk notwithstanding). I suppose the important question is if Higgins was a good lingerie salesman (and did he model his own wares)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Parbes says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated Fred. Hillary C does not know her a** from a hole in the ground. Trump on the other hand has built skyscrapers and golf courses and knows a thing or two about personal and business relations. Like Trump says, how about being friends with Russia? We may never go to the altar but that does not mean we cannot have mutual respect and trade with one another and get along. Why view Russia as a threat? How about we stay out of their back yard, they stay out of ours, and we respect one another and be on amicable terms? The Cold War is over. If you asked your average citizen on either side, neither would want any kind of war for crying out loud. But they have more sense than our "leadership" in Washington, which probably is the world leader in corrupt idiots per capita--we're #1. I have listened to many things Putin has said -- he is not a warmonger and is not looking for a fight. Could we be smart for a change and not give him one? What is it with the endless war morons in the Pentagon, White House, and elsewhere? They tend to be think tank morons who want to play global geopolitical strategy games, and not military men and, like Fred says, never have worn boots. For God's sake people do not vote for Hillary, that chicken hawk corrupt lying idiot (who hates the military) would double our debt and get us into WW III.

    “What is it with the endless war morons in the Pentagon, White House, and elsewhere? They tend to be think tank morons who want to play global geopolitical strategy games…”

    That’s exactly the problem, in a nutshell… They are playing GAMES; it’s all GAMES to them, with the world as a board. They incur no personal risk, do no personal fighting, are never personally threatened, held accountable or made to pay for their criminal actions. They are never personally hunted down or punished.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This is one of your best editorials ever, Reed, and a feast of brilliant humour, though on a minimally amusing matter, but it’s still good, very good, to have some laughter while reading on a depressing topic.

    Whenever you don’t handle Mexico-related topic, which sadly never fails to degrade your objectivity, reading is delightful.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I've had reason to threaten your outing before WOz. Now this is getting close to a last warning.

    Do you really want to have to explain why you are spending time on even reading garbage?

    If you think someone is unemployed and clinically depressed are you sure you want to be responsible for the effect that saying so may have on them?

    Not only on drugs, but a multiple personalities disorder (with “oz” in everything). unz.com is becoming a treasure trove for psychiatrists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "a multiple personalities disorder"
    So true. The curious differences in style could be explained either by psychiatric aspect or by enumerated propagandizing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Lawrence Fitton
    the 1960's film, dr. strangelove, was not suppose to be a documentary.
    anybody see that unhinged, talking head, col. ralph peters, on fox news? he reminds me of a character in the movie.
    henry kissinger: "soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in world affairs."
    whomever wants to get his johnson blown off for neocon wet dreams raise your hand.
    obama makes war in 7 countries. wanna go for 8? it'll give new meaning to 'behind the 8-ball.'
    bin laden said he wanted to goad america into a protracted land war in asia. he sought to bankrupt another empire. 6 trillion and counting. with eyes wide shut, we do his bidding.
    like kurt vonnegut said in slaughterhouse 5 - and so it goes.

    The $1 trillion is a low number but here’s the real shocker: the best estimate I’ve seen from a reasonably unbiased source- The Lancet and sundry updates elsewhere is that the total number of Iraqi slaughtered is 2.3 million or so (and that was back in 2008).

    That works out to about $500,000 per rotting Arab corpse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Kiza
    Presenting Germany and Germans as victims of World Wars is a cottage industry now. It is really pointless to try to counter these stupid claims of Anglo-American "historians" that it was all a Russian, French and Serbian fault. The Germans and the British were just innocent victims of "expansionist Russia".

    I am just awaiting an authoritative opinion on the issue of who started WW1 and why by that internationally recognised citizen journalist and historian Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat (a former female lingerie salesman). I am sure he could pass a few photos from WW1 through his software tool and tell us the truth. Or maybe this Steve Naidamast is angling for this position of the citizen-historian, beacause he read one book by a "British historian" (probably more than Higgins).

    Ths is what passes for expertise in the new empire.

    Gawd, it’s hard to believe that a hundred years after the fact, some mule-brained asses still can’t get over blaming Germany primarily. Sheesh!

    Yet…

    “…many educated Americans remembered the great revisionist controversies of the twenties and thirties. In the immediate wake of the first war, a number of American historians produced histories demonstrating that the Germans were hardly the only power to deserve blame for the coming of the war. These “revisionists” — Sidney B. Fay, Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, H.C. Engelbrecht and Bernie Hanighen, and others — revised much of the received history put out by the Entente governments and the patriotic historians who supported the party line. “

    https://mises.org/library/world-war-i-our-minds-historical-view

    Get a grip, will ya?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American "historian" circle. It just happens that both during the WW1 and WW2 a significant portion of the members of the "elite" were pro-German. Particularly in the US, where perhaps the third most prevalent ethnicity was German and the first Irish were both pro-German. Even many of the English lords in Britain were pro-German. Remember the video of the currently reigning Queen Elizabeth II doing a nazi salute as a child? So why is it surprising that these people would refuse to acknowledge their error and would continue supporting Germany after the war?

    But I am sure all this is beyond you. I will not engage in further pointless discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Steve Naidamast
    I cannot agree with the comments made about Kaiser Wilhelm in regards for his desire for war.

    To begin with, Germany did not initiate World War I. It was dragged into the conflict as a result of Russian mobilization making France an immediate belligerent towards Germany as a result of Franco-Russo alliances.

    Second Kaiser Wilhelm was the last person who wanted such a conflict. In fact, he tried very hard to stop it as John Keegan describes in his excellent one volume history on the matter.

    The kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but of respect for English naval capabilities. Unfortunately, England, with their "balance of power" doctrines that were also a major factor in starting World War II could not see this and immediately saw the German Kriegsmarine as a threat. Considering that German overseas possessions were quite minor at the time compared to other European powers, one has to wonder exactly what type of threat the Kriegsmarine posed considering that it was hardly planning to attack the English Navy.

    Finally, Germany was the last nation to officially enter the conflict. You can see this in Meyer's excellent one volume history on the subject, "A World Undone"...

    Your errors of chronology, already shown up, are perhaps enough. But I would add that your saying the “Kaiser did not build his navy to compete with England but [out of] respect for England’s naval capabilities” as if that was some sort of defence of the Kaiser or of Germany is mindblowing.

    Let’s assume that it wasn’t just a case of wanting the same grown up toys as his cousins had. What was Germany going to do with its navy? And what assurance would amyone have that tomorow’s German leaders would always treat the navy as just an Imperial toy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    {The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch....}

    I may be mistaken, but Arkhipov was not the commander, although as you wrote, he was one of the three officers authorized to vote to launch.
    From my memory, the commander of the sub and the other officer wanted to launch, but Arkhipov refused to cast a "Yes" vote, despite tremendous pressure from the other two. Apparently the rule was that the vote had to be unanimous to launch. A very good thing.

    This is a side point, but yes. Arkhipov was not the commander of the submarine bombed by the US Navy, he was a commander of another submarine but he was added to this critical mission as an additional officer, equal in rank to the submarine commander in charge. The problems was that the nuclear missile and torpedo submarine in question was disel-electric, noisy and incapable of hiding underwater for a longer time. The bombing of the this submarine was such a mad act that the whole crew thought that the nuclear war has started already, maybe the SU did not exist any more and that the US Navy was just finishing the job (mopping up) by destroying the left-over Soviet forces, such is their submarine. Could you even imagine the underwater discussion when they thought that their world is probably gone? Send a nuclear torpedo up the aircraft carrier’s tail pipe or not?

    I am not sure that the decision had to be unanimous, especially because the military regulations would not have been likely to cover the situation of three officers on board, when the normal complement is two. In other words, it would have been sufficient to have a unanimous decision by the two who wanted to launch the torpedo. But, apparently, commander Arkhipov was an almost legendary Soviet sailor, due to his actions during a catastrophe on a Rusian nuclear powered submarine, where his organisational skills, quick thinking and bravery saved the majority of the crew and the world from a possible reactor explosion. This informal authority gave him the power to counter-balance the decision of the two officers authorised to make the decision. Just consider that it was the commander of the submarine who was responsible for the property and the crew well-being, not Arhkipov. If it were some other personality and not this maritime legend, the submarine commander could have assigned him to quarters under guard and launched the torpedo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Let me finish the story of Submarine Commander, later Admiral Arhkipov with a short note on Anglo-American historical distortions of the event.

    The depth charges they were dropping on the Soviet submarine were "signalling" depth charges. They just wanted the submarine to surface and were signalling their noble desire.

    Even Paul Craig Roberts, quoting the US sources, called the total maritime blockade of Cuba by US a "quarantine" as if Cubans had some viral disease.

    And so on. I think that you have to be an Anglo-American nationalist (exceptionalist) to buy the bull they sell as history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Kiza says:
    @Jacques Sheete
    Gawd, it’s hard to believe that a hundred years after the fact, some mule-brained asses still can’t get over blaming Germany primarily. Sheesh!

    Yet...

    “…many educated Americans remembered the great revisionist controversies of the twenties and thirties. In the immediate wake of the first war, a number of American historians produced histories demonstrating that the Germans were hardly the only power to deserve blame for the coming of the war. These “revisionists” — Sidney B. Fay, Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, H.C. Engelbrecht and Bernie Hanighen, and others — revised much of the received history put out by the Entente governments and the patriotic historians who supported the party line. “

    https://mises.org/library/world-war-i-our-minds-historical-view

     

    Get a grip, will ya?

    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American “historian” circle. It just happens that both during the WW1 and WW2 a significant portion of the members of the “elite” were pro-German. Particularly in the US, where perhaps the third most prevalent ethnicity was German and the first Irish were both pro-German. Even many of the English lords in Britain were pro-German. Remember the video of the currently reigning Queen Elizabeth II doing a nazi salute as a child? So why is it surprising that these people would refuse to acknowledge their error and would continue supporting Germany after the war?

    But I am sure all this is beyond you. I will not engage in further pointless discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You make reference to English and American historians peddling an apparently now fashionable line that Russia was responsible for WW1 to the exclusion of German (and French and English) responsibility. I would be interested in the reading list which you will vouch for as supporting this as my historical interests have not been fully updated by the fact of WW1 centenaries generating a lot of books.

    I suppose my tentatative view would be that Germany, after Bismarck, had become irresponsibly dangerous and that getting the needed war over as soon as possible was a big part of the thinking of military leaders who probably thought the Kaiser was a bit wayward and unreliable. And of course the big problem all round at the highest levels (despite Earl Grey's famous "lights are going out" forebodings) was the inability to conceive just how long and hard the war would be. Come to think of it the Czar might have been the least likely to be put off by a warning that he would lose many battles and millions of men and that the war could drag on for four years! And that would have been sort of rational given still premodern fertility rates in his empire.
    , @Jacques Sheete

    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American “historian” circle.

     

    Well, at least you recognize the thinking part of it, but you fail to offer any evidence for the second charge.

    Anyway, for those who're still confused about assigning the blame for WW1, here's a good place to get your minds straight on the matter.

    Nock's "The Myth of a Guilty Nation is online here. Read it.


    https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Myth%20of%20a%20Guilty%20Nation_2.pdf?file=1&type=document
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Joe Franklin
    Iraq was invaded as part of a larger plan to encircle Iran, the prime enemy of Israel.


    Iraq was invaded on the western end of Iran, and Afghanistan was invaded on the eastern end of Iran, effectively surrounding Iran.

    The strategy was to defeat Iranian SCUD missiles launched at Israel in the short flight time they needed to reach Israel.

    Anti-ballistic missile counter-measures are most effective in the boost phase of a targeted SCUD missile, and proximity of an ABM to a target SCUD launch origin enhances the chance of a SCUD shoot down.

    Hence, American-Israeli ABMs are now located on the eastern border of Iraq and western border of Afghanistan, and both aimed at Iran.

    Words have meanings even if fuzzy ones. When you say “encircle” and “surround” I have to ask whether you have looked at a map.

    Then there are the “American-Israeli ABMs”! What? Israeli military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq? And if there were why would missile systems be placed on the borders with Iran in either case?

    From Afghanistan the ABM would have to start behind the SCUDs and overtake them. If the ABMs in Iraq were on the eastern border wouldn’t they be too close for intercepting Iranian missiles fired from just the other side of the border. Sounds like nonsense to me. Where do you get such stuff?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Kiza says:
    @Pittsburgh Thatcherite
    China is the only nation that could become more powerful than America.

    Possibly much more powerful.

    Russia, a nation with a potent military and a lengthy border with China, could help America counter China.

    China will not start a war, if defeat is certain.

    Imagine how different the world would appear to China’s leaders if Russia was an ally of America, instead of the current situation, in which Russia is an adversary of America.

    In order to discourage China from starting a war, America should reconcile with Russia.

    Too late, mate. And US does not need any allies, only satellites. That is, US has nothing to offer to Russia that Russia would want. We need to appreciate that outcomes always have good reasons, even when we have no clue what those reasons are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Hibernian says:
    @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    Did you think “Washington” meant George Washington, rather than the city?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Bill says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You are intellectually crude. I noted that Fred was making a lot of assumptions and sought to find out what they were, precisely, and what he relied on for forming his opinion about her willingness to go to war or risk war with Russia.

    To say someone is a "war candidate" is so uninformative when nuance and detail is required as to be effectively stupid.

    If it is all so obvious to you and you wish to win arguments you should be able, for starters to rattle off the time, place, circumstances and content of any statements by Clinton that constitute belligerence amounting to threat of force against any nation or even abstractions like terrorism or axes of evil. You should be able to do the same for those you say she relies on for advice - or at least gives privileged access to - and give an adequate account of the connection she has with them and the reasons for believing that they have this or that degree of influence over her.

    Yeah, Kiza, none of your “sky is blue” blustering: the Whiz won’t have it. Get out your spectrometer and be prepared to document not only that Richard Feynman said that the sky was blue but also that Richard Feynman really is Richard Feynman. Also, not everyone agrees that Dicky was actually a physicist, so be sure to get on that one as well. And how do we really know that Richard Feynman and Richard Nixon were different people? They’re both tricky and Dicky, right? Also, those wiggly arrow things Feynman was always drawing look pretty good on napkins. Like hotel napkins. The Watergate is a hotel. There’s a lot of work for you to do here, so you’d best get busy. You don’t have anything more important to do than chase down these details for Whizzy, right? Shouldn’t take any time really. I mean, no reasonable person could “know” the sky is blue without having all of Feynman’s biographical details right to hand, yes? Wait . . . one of them was a Quaker and the other one was a whaddayacallit thing. That helps, right? Quakers and those other ones, they’re different, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Glad to know your powerful mind is being distracted from exercising itself on anything important. BTW attempted satire can only work if it has at least one of two qualities. Either it should be funny - and stodgy sarcasm seems to be your preference - or it should be sufficiently close in facts or logic to what is satirised to make a point. But don't bother to try again. Pursue your amateur interest in the writings of the great Richard Feynman in the hope that something might rub off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. annamaria says:
    @Kiza
    Not only on drugs, but a multiple personalities disorder (with "oz" in everything). unz.com is becoming a treasure trove for psychiatrists.

    “a multiple personalities disorder”
    So true. The curious differences in style could be explained either by psychiatric aspect or by enumerated propagandizing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are you one of Kiza's fellow Russians? Within the limits of your command of English would you please elucidate "enumerated propagandizing" as an explanation or in any context at all?
    , @Kiza
    Anna, that was my joke. Using a proxy server to post comments under different nicks is called "multiple personality disorder". But you probably know that already. Hey Wizz, do not accuse all commenters who criticise you of being Russian, DNC from the US may accuse you of stealing their propaganda patent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Kiza
    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American "historian" circle. It just happens that both during the WW1 and WW2 a significant portion of the members of the "elite" were pro-German. Particularly in the US, where perhaps the third most prevalent ethnicity was German and the first Irish were both pro-German. Even many of the English lords in Britain were pro-German. Remember the video of the currently reigning Queen Elizabeth II doing a nazi salute as a child? So why is it surprising that these people would refuse to acknowledge their error and would continue supporting Germany after the war?

    But I am sure all this is beyond you. I will not engage in further pointless discussion.

    You make reference to English and American historians peddling an apparently now fashionable line that Russia was responsible for WW1 to the exclusion of German (and French and English) responsibility. I would be interested in the reading list which you will vouch for as supporting this as my historical interests have not been fully updated by the fact of WW1 centenaries generating a lot of books.

    I suppose my tentatative view would be that Germany, after Bismarck, had become irresponsibly dangerous and that getting the needed war over as soon as possible was a big part of the thinking of military leaders who probably thought the Kaiser was a bit wayward and unreliable. And of course the big problem all round at the highest levels (despite Earl Grey’s famous “lights are going out” forebodings) was the inability to conceive just how long and hard the war would be. Come to think of it the Czar might have been the least likely to be put off by a warning that he would lose many battles and millions of men and that the war could drag on for four years! And that would have been sort of rational given still premodern fertility rates in his empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Wizzard, my apology, you keep challenging both sides of the historical argument. Thus your challenge on Hillary as a War Candidate may have been non-sinister, possibly even lack of information due to consumption of the Australian MSM. Therefore, let me give you two links:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/12/mike-morells-kill-russians-advice/
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8O0uv4_ryas
    But do not say that this is not Hillary herself, because why do these two job applicants have to talk up war if there is going to be peace under Hillary?

    I have no gripe with your last paragraph above, which is aligned with the non-revisionist, classical history/understanding of German ascent and World Wars. But the level of thought here at unz is sometimes quite disappointing, such as this character saying that Germany developed a military navy to admire the British one. Where do such stupid characters grow? In the MSM dark and being fed MSM sh**, just like mushrooms? Well, that wins the day as the most stupid comment on this article.

    I come here to learn something, not to enjoy the regurgitations of MSM fed morons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @annamaria
    "a multiple personalities disorder"
    So true. The curious differences in style could be explained either by psychiatric aspect or by enumerated propagandizing.

    Are you one of Kiza’s fellow Russians? Within the limits of your command of English would you please elucidate “enumerated propagandizing” as an explanation or in any context at all?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Kiza says:
    @Kiza
    This is a side point, but yes. Arkhipov was not the commander of the submarine bombed by the US Navy, he was a commander of another submarine but he was added to this critical mission as an additional officer, equal in rank to the submarine commander in charge. The problems was that the nuclear missile and torpedo submarine in question was disel-electric, noisy and incapable of hiding underwater for a longer time. The bombing of the this submarine was such a mad act that the whole crew thought that the nuclear war has started already, maybe the SU did not exist any more and that the US Navy was just finishing the job (mopping up) by destroying the left-over Soviet forces, such is their submarine. Could you even imagine the underwater discussion when they thought that their world is probably gone? Send a nuclear torpedo up the aircraft carrier's tail pipe or not?

    I am not sure that the decision had to be unanimous, especially because the military regulations would not have been likely to cover the situation of three officers on board, when the normal complement is two. In other words, it would have been sufficient to have a unanimous decision by the two who wanted to launch the torpedo. But, apparently, commander Arkhipov was an almost legendary Soviet sailor, due to his actions during a catastrophe on a Rusian nuclear powered submarine, where his organisational skills, quick thinking and bravery saved the majority of the crew and the world from a possible reactor explosion. This informal authority gave him the power to counter-balance the decision of the two officers authorised to make the decision. Just consider that it was the commander of the submarine who was responsible for the property and the crew well-being, not Arhkipov. If it were some other personality and not this maritime legend, the submarine commander could have assigned him to quarters under guard and launched the torpedo.

    Let me finish the story of Submarine Commander, later Admiral Arhkipov with a short note on Anglo-American historical distortions of the event.

    The depth charges they were dropping on the Soviet submarine were “signalling” depth charges. They just wanted the submarine to surface and were signalling their noble desire.

    Even Paul Craig Roberts, quoting the US sources, called the total maritime blockade of Cuba by US a “quarantine” as if Cubans had some viral disease.

    And so on. I think that you have to be an Anglo-American nationalist (exceptionalist) to buy the bull they sell as history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You leave the reader in suspense. Was there such a thing as a "signalling depth charge"? One that only exploded in soprano frquencies? How would it have been recognised? Was there some common code whereby the timing and/or something about the sound of the explosion said "surface and we won't sink you even though you are a sitting duck"?

    I'm not sure what's wrong with "quarantine" as a rough metaphor although, as you imply, it is more usually applied to preventing something escaping from the place or people quarantined. But the total isolation of someone is acceptable reach for the metaphor and whatever the equivalent in your mother tongue may connote or imply "quarantine" doesn't carry necessarily offensive implications in English.

    BTW do you know Prof Anna Wierzbicka's marvellous little work "Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words" in which she deals with Russian, English, Polish, German and Japanese. When reading your posts I have been reminded of some of her more amusing observations - like Russian's gold medal in the coining and use of offensive words for fool,idiot, moron, drongo etc. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Bill
    Yeah, Kiza, none of your "sky is blue" blustering: the Whiz won't have it. Get out your spectrometer and be prepared to document not only that Richard Feynman said that the sky was blue but also that Richard Feynman really is Richard Feynman. Also, not everyone agrees that Dicky was actually a physicist, so be sure to get on that one as well. And how do we really know that Richard Feynman and Richard Nixon were different people? They're both tricky and Dicky, right? Also, those wiggly arrow things Feynman was always drawing look pretty good on napkins. Like hotel napkins. The Watergate is a hotel. There's a lot of work for you to do here, so you'd best get busy. You don't have anything more important to do than chase down these details for Whizzy, right? Shouldn't take any time really. I mean, no reasonable person could "know" the sky is blue without having all of Feynman's biographical details right to hand, yes? Wait . . . one of them was a Quaker and the other one was a whaddayacallit thing. That helps, right? Quakers and those other ones, they're different, right?

    Glad to know your powerful mind is being distracted from exercising itself on anything important. BTW attempted satire can only work if it has at least one of two qualities. Either it should be funny – and stodgy sarcasm seems to be your preference – or it should be sufficiently close in facts or logic to what is satirised to make a point. But don’t bother to try again. Pursue your amateur interest in the writings of the great Richard Feynman in the hope that something might rub off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Common you got to admit, this was funny. Anyway, keep questionning Wizz, it is the best way to learn, even if you ask banal questions sometimes. Perhaps, I should be questionning my pre-conceptions more, the same as you. It is all good fun, and when you are not dropping names, connections, culture, language style and nobility, you are actually a nice fellow. It is just hard to find a comment where you are not dropping, that is all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You make reference to English and American historians peddling an apparently now fashionable line that Russia was responsible for WW1 to the exclusion of German (and French and English) responsibility. I would be interested in the reading list which you will vouch for as supporting this as my historical interests have not been fully updated by the fact of WW1 centenaries generating a lot of books.

    I suppose my tentatative view would be that Germany, after Bismarck, had become irresponsibly dangerous and that getting the needed war over as soon as possible was a big part of the thinking of military leaders who probably thought the Kaiser was a bit wayward and unreliable. And of course the big problem all round at the highest levels (despite Earl Grey's famous "lights are going out" forebodings) was the inability to conceive just how long and hard the war would be. Come to think of it the Czar might have been the least likely to be put off by a warning that he would lose many battles and millions of men and that the war could drag on for four years! And that would have been sort of rational given still premodern fertility rates in his empire.

    Wizzard, my apology, you keep challenging both sides of the historical argument. Thus your challenge on Hillary as a War Candidate may have been non-sinister, possibly even lack of information due to consumption of the Australian MSM. Therefore, let me give you two links:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/12/mike-morells-kill-russians-advice/

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8O0uv4_ryas

    But do not say that this is not Hillary herself, because why do these two job applicants have to talk up war if there is going to be peace under Hillary?

    I have no gripe with your last paragraph above, which is aligned with the non-revisionist, classical history/understanding of German ascent and World Wars. But the level of thought here at unz is sometimes quite disappointing, such as this character saying that Germany developed a military navy to admire the British one. Where do such stupid characters grow? In the MSM dark and being fed MSM sh**, just like mushrooms? Well, that wins the day as the most stupid comment on this article.

    I come here to learn something, not to enjoy the regurgitations of MSM fed morons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You mean we might have to be friends. What an appalling prospect. Still I've learned to endure hard times...
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed it is just possible that one can learn something by provoking some of the more opinionated to disclose their thinking - and then, with luck, have someone who really knows his/her stuff give chapter and verse.

    On the other hand I can't help picking on logical gaps and nonsequiturs even when I should have given up the commenter as a lost cause or never started. It's not even keeping the little grey cells function. It's a kind of covert addictive procrastination I fear
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for the link to that comedy act at the Democrat National Convention. (Did you see what faces that were being panned behind the fatfaced general orator when he spoke of all the wonderful young people?)

    More relevant to your and Fred's case is what Ray McGovern had to say about Morell. But I suspect that Hillary would be amply protected against Morell and his kind by having, not a sensible spouse, but a very experienced and sharp one.

    Consider the scene at the Clinton breakfast table during that December weekend when Hillary and Bill are having a really frank chat about who should be given even the time of day. Ah there's mighty Mike Morell...should I allow it to appear that writing favourable slop in the Times gets rewarded, even once? Well yeeess a brave young warrior like him could be a very suitable Special Envoy to the badlands of Afghanistan where he brandishes his Colt 45 and talks the Taliban into submission. OK OK I think Administrator of the Marshall Islands might just about do it....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Kiza says:
    @annamaria
    "a multiple personalities disorder"
    So true. The curious differences in style could be explained either by psychiatric aspect or by enumerated propagandizing.

    Anna, that was my joke. Using a proxy server to post comments under different nicks is called “multiple personality disorder”. But you probably know that already. Hey Wizz, do not accuse all commenters who criticise you of being Russian, DNC from the US may accuse you of stealing their propaganda patent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Kiza says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Glad to know your powerful mind is being distracted from exercising itself on anything important. BTW attempted satire can only work if it has at least one of two qualities. Either it should be funny - and stodgy sarcasm seems to be your preference - or it should be sufficiently close in facts or logic to what is satirised to make a point. But don't bother to try again. Pursue your amateur interest in the writings of the great Richard Feynman in the hope that something might rub off.

    Common you got to admit, this was funny. Anyway, keep questionning Wizz, it is the best way to learn, even if you ask banal questions sometimes. Perhaps, I should be questionning my pre-conceptions more, the same as you. It is all good fun, and when you are not dropping names, connections, culture, language style and nobility, you are actually a nice fellow. It is just hard to find a comment where you are not dropping, that is all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. avraham says:
    @Avery
    {The submarine commander Arkhipov, one of the three officers authorised to decide on launching a nuclear torpedo on a US aircraft carrier convinced the other two to officers to not launch....}

    I may be mistaken, but Arkhipov was not the commander, although as you wrote, he was one of the three officers authorized to vote to launch.
    From my memory, the commander of the sub and the other officer wanted to launch, but Arkhipov refused to cast a "Yes" vote, despite tremendous pressure from the other two. Apparently the rule was that the vote had to be unanimous to launch. A very good thing.

    There were more than a few such incidents in which individual soviet soldier decided not to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, though the circumstances warranted it. I think there were occasions in which the officer involved was demoted. There also was caution on the side of the USA. Eisenhower was being urged to launch a nuclear strike against the USSR by the secretary of the Navy an instead decided to begin the U-2 program to see what the Soviets were up to. That showed him that in fact the Russian were not preparing any kind of invasion or launching of missiles. My Dad was the leader of one the teams that developed the cameras for the U-2.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @annamaria
    The more serious consequence of the wikileaks was the divulgence of facts related to Clinton Foundation -- evidences of foreign influence on Clinton' actions that were the payback for large donations.

    Just asking… What’s the evidence for systematic connections between Clinton’s decisions as Secretary of State and donations to the Clinton Foundation? Especially what’s the csse for saying that important decisions might have been influenced?

    You might disagree with my a priori analysis but I would start with the supposition that the Clinton Foundation is/was not fundamental to the Clintons living the good life – more a provider of champagne and applause. Then I would factor in her ambition and unwillingness to break out of constraints on her total freedom as Sec of State so as to cause adverse comment.

    Guaranteeing someone access, which hardly rises to the level of soft corruption, I would expect. But beyond that? Allowing the rich to buy hope without the slightest intention of giving anything I would expect too. Then there would the slightly more devious “well of course Sir as a foreigner you can’t be seen to be a donor to the Secretary’s campaign ….. but there is this charitable foundation…”.

    Maybe its all public and easily knowable but what the Clintons get out of the foundation personally or in aid of H’s political career would interest me. First class travel goes without saying though that mightn’t always be colorable as charitable and I would expect the Clintons by now – despite Bill’s risktaking temperament – to have a very careful canny lawyer with good PR instincts making sure the foundation is squeaky clean…. But who would be better at knowing what they can get away with than the two old pros themselves….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Kiza
    Let me finish the story of Submarine Commander, later Admiral Arhkipov with a short note on Anglo-American historical distortions of the event.

    The depth charges they were dropping on the Soviet submarine were "signalling" depth charges. They just wanted the submarine to surface and were signalling their noble desire.

    Even Paul Craig Roberts, quoting the US sources, called the total maritime blockade of Cuba by US a "quarantine" as if Cubans had some viral disease.

    And so on. I think that you have to be an Anglo-American nationalist (exceptionalist) to buy the bull they sell as history.

    You leave the reader in suspense. Was there such a thing as a “signalling depth charge”? One that only exploded in soprano frquencies? How would it have been recognised? Was there some common code whereby the timing and/or something about the sound of the explosion said “surface and we won’t sink you even though you are a sitting duck”?

    I’m not sure what’s wrong with “quarantine” as a rough metaphor although, as you imply, it is more usually applied to preventing something escaping from the place or people quarantined. But the total isolation of someone is acceptable reach for the metaphor and whatever the equivalent in your mother tongue may connote or imply “quarantine” doesn’t carry necessarily offensive implications in English.

    BTW do you know Prof Anna Wierzbicka’s marvellous little work “Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words” in which she deals with Russian, English, Polish, German and Japanese. When reading your posts I have been reminded of some of her more amusing observations – like Russian’s gold medal in the coining and use of offensive words for fool,idiot, moron, drongo etc. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Kiza
    Wizzard, my apology, you keep challenging both sides of the historical argument. Thus your challenge on Hillary as a War Candidate may have been non-sinister, possibly even lack of information due to consumption of the Australian MSM. Therefore, let me give you two links:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/12/mike-morells-kill-russians-advice/
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8O0uv4_ryas
    But do not say that this is not Hillary herself, because why do these two job applicants have to talk up war if there is going to be peace under Hillary?

    I have no gripe with your last paragraph above, which is aligned with the non-revisionist, classical history/understanding of German ascent and World Wars. But the level of thought here at unz is sometimes quite disappointing, such as this character saying that Germany developed a military navy to admire the British one. Where do such stupid characters grow? In the MSM dark and being fed MSM sh**, just like mushrooms? Well, that wins the day as the most stupid comment on this article.

    I come here to learn something, not to enjoy the regurgitations of MSM fed morons.

    You mean we might have to be friends. What an appalling prospect. Still I’ve learned to endure hard times…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Kiza
    Wizzard, my apology, you keep challenging both sides of the historical argument. Thus your challenge on Hillary as a War Candidate may have been non-sinister, possibly even lack of information due to consumption of the Australian MSM. Therefore, let me give you two links:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/12/mike-morells-kill-russians-advice/
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8O0uv4_ryas
    But do not say that this is not Hillary herself, because why do these two job applicants have to talk up war if there is going to be peace under Hillary?

    I have no gripe with your last paragraph above, which is aligned with the non-revisionist, classical history/understanding of German ascent and World Wars. But the level of thought here at unz is sometimes quite disappointing, such as this character saying that Germany developed a military navy to admire the British one. Where do such stupid characters grow? In the MSM dark and being fed MSM sh**, just like mushrooms? Well, that wins the day as the most stupid comment on this article.

    I come here to learn something, not to enjoy the regurgitations of MSM fed morons.

    Indeed it is just possible that one can learn something by provoking some of the more opinionated to disclose their thinking – and then, with luck, have someone who really knows his/her stuff give chapter and verse.

    On the other hand I can’t help picking on logical gaps and nonsequiturs even when I should have given up the commenter as a lost cause or never started. It’s not even keeping the little grey cells function. It’s a kind of covert addictive procrastination I fear

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. 5371 says:
    @Stebbing Heuer
    From Hajo Holborn's introduction to the English-language edition Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War':

    Fischer places the chief responsibility for the start of the war squarely on the shoulders of the imperial German government.

    Outside of Germany this has been the predominant view among historians for some time. First presented by Bernadotte Schmitt and Pierre Renouvin it originally had to contend with opinions which came closer to the German position that all the great powers or at least Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany - in that order - were to blame for the conflict. The two-volume work of the Italian Luigi Albertini on the origins of World War I, translated into English in 1952, did much to crystallize the judgment of the non-German historians around the conviction that the chief responsibility for plunging Europe into war rested with the German government. Fritz Fischer's treatment, while adding some interesting new details, conforms in general to Albertini's narrative.
     
    Fischer's 'interesting new details' came from his and his students' labouring in the German government's archives. But as Holborn says, he didn't propose the hypothesis.

    I recall (I can't remember where, I'm afraid), one English historian, possibly Liddell-Hart or AJP Taylor, saying that he didn't know what all the fuss was about when Fischer's book came out: Fischer's conclusions, regarding German culpability for starting the war, were largely the same as the long-established conclusions of historians in the rest of the world.

    So much for the whole 'Fritz Fischer school of historiography' not amounting to much.

    All you managed was an appeal to authority, unlikely to convince anyone who thinks about how that particular authority came to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Kiza
    Wizzard, my apology, you keep challenging both sides of the historical argument. Thus your challenge on Hillary as a War Candidate may have been non-sinister, possibly even lack of information due to consumption of the Australian MSM. Therefore, let me give you two links:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/12/mike-morells-kill-russians-advice/
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8O0uv4_ryas
    But do not say that this is not Hillary herself, because why do these two job applicants have to talk up war if there is going to be peace under Hillary?

    I have no gripe with your last paragraph above, which is aligned with the non-revisionist, classical history/understanding of German ascent and World Wars. But the level of thought here at unz is sometimes quite disappointing, such as this character saying that Germany developed a military navy to admire the British one. Where do such stupid characters grow? In the MSM dark and being fed MSM sh**, just like mushrooms? Well, that wins the day as the most stupid comment on this article.

    I come here to learn something, not to enjoy the regurgitations of MSM fed morons.

    Thank you for the link to that comedy act at the Democrat National Convention. (Did you see what faces that were being panned behind the fatfaced general orator when he spoke of all the wonderful young people?)

    More relevant to your and Fred’s case is what Ray McGovern had to say about Morell. But I suspect that Hillary would be amply protected against Morell and his kind by having, not a sensible spouse, but a very experienced and sharp one.

    Consider the scene at the Clinton breakfast table during that December weekend when Hillary and Bill are having a really frank chat about who should be given even the time of day. Ah there’s mighty Mike Morell…should I allow it to appear that writing favourable slop in the Times gets rewarded, even once? Well yeeess a brave young warrior like him could be a very suitable Special Envoy to the badlands of Afghanistan where he brandishes his Colt 45 and talks the Taliban into submission. OK OK I think Administrator of the Marshall Islands might just about do it….

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    So why didn't "experienced and sharp" Bill insist that she post Fucktoria Nudelwoman to the Marshall Islands, instead of endorsing her 5-year campaign to undermine Yanukovych and the Russian-Ukrainian economic relationship?

    Why waste the energy speculating on Hillary's cabinet choices when there is so much track record as evidence? Hildabeast advocates (and has, for a long time) the "No-Fly Zone" in Syria, which translates as US free-fire zone to enable Morell to get his Russian kills in that airspace.

    The US public has swallowed so much disinformation about Ukraine and Syria, even a radical stomach-pumping may not save them. Their perception of themselves as exceptional and Putin as evil may lead to the worst results.

    PS
    The first day of the DNC convention, about 4 of the speakers said the same thing, i.e. they had nothing favorable to say about Hillary besides coming out of law school and doing some non-profit work for children. The irony, OMG, that on the same night they trotted out that old ghoul, "it was worth it" Madeleine Albright who approved the murder-by-sanction of half a million Iraqi children. It was not only Obama who created ISIS: Bill Clinton and both Bushes share the development rights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Incitatus says:
    @Kiza
    Presenting Germany and Germans as victims of World Wars is a cottage industry now. It is really pointless to try to counter these stupid claims of Anglo-American "historians" that it was all a Russian, French and Serbian fault. The Germans and the British were just innocent victims of "expansionist Russia".

    I am just awaiting an authoritative opinion on the issue of who started WW1 and why by that internationally recognised citizen journalist and historian Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat (a former female lingerie salesman). I am sure he could pass a few photos from WW1 through his software tool and tell us the truth. Or maybe this Steve Naidamast is angling for this position of the citizen-historian, beacause he read one book by a "British historian" (probably more than Higgins).

    Ths is what passes for expertise in the new empire.

    I agree on the revisionism. Everybody needs to sell books, after all, and controversy is a good draw. But now it’s almost as if Lord Londonderry sprang back to life. Few Germans push the agenda (Nemesis having amply punished Hubris).

    Don’t get me wrong: I would’ve starved long ago as a historian. I simply think countries that declare war and aggressively invade neighbors (especially neutrals) should get at least 51% of the blame.

    Thanks for the tip on Eliot Higgins. It helps explain the stellar reporting on Ghouta (apostates Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk notwithstanding). I suppose the important question is if Higgins was a good lingerie salesman (and did he model his own wares)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Kiza
    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American "historian" circle. It just happens that both during the WW1 and WW2 a significant portion of the members of the "elite" were pro-German. Particularly in the US, where perhaps the third most prevalent ethnicity was German and the first Irish were both pro-German. Even many of the English lords in Britain were pro-German. Remember the video of the currently reigning Queen Elizabeth II doing a nazi salute as a child? So why is it surprising that these people would refuse to acknowledge their error and would continue supporting Germany after the war?

    But I am sure all this is beyond you. I will not engage in further pointless discussion.

    Your thinking would commonly be recognised as circular, but you are incapable of getting out of the Anglo-American “historian” circle.

    Well, at least you recognize the thinking part of it, but you fail to offer any evidence for the second charge.

    Anyway, for those who’re still confused about assigning the blame for WW1, here’s a good place to get your minds straight on the matter.

    Nock’s “The Myth of a Guilty Nation is online here. Read it.

    https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Myth%20of%20a%20Guilty%20Nation_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Incitatus says:
    @Stebbing Heuer
    'Incitatus', you of all people should know that you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

    Point taken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Dissident says:

    To what extent can the Russia-baiting that Mr. Reed addresses be explained by Putin’s refusal to bend-over and allow his nation to be sodomized by the pernicious agenda of the “LGBTQ” mafia?

    (An agenda that includes the whitewashing and promotion of a dangerous, anatomically and physiologically unsound *(pseudo-)sex act; insiduous indoctrination of impressionable youth; and, perhaps worst of all, the irreversible mutilation and desecration of young, confused children in the name of “therapy”, “tolerance” and “progress”.

    *Highly graphic content

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. Incitatus says:
    @SolontoCroesus


    “Soon the sainted idealist Woodrow Wilson added tens of thousands of young Americans to the mix.”
     
    “What do you expect when I’m between two men – one of whom [Lloyd George] thinks he’s Napoleon and the other [Wilson] thinks he’s Jesus Christ?
    -Clemenceau 20 May 1919
     
    Hate to do this to RobinG, who pointed us to a discussion of Jeffrey Rosen's book on Brandeis, http://www.unz.com/article/neocon-like-groupthink-dominates-both-conventions/#comment-1520627


    I suspect RobinG has since recalled that Alison Weir reported on Brandeis's membership in the Parushim, the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ly75-R5TN8

    In an article reprinted from American Jewish Quarterly, Sarah Schmidt reported:

    The Parushim [ Hebrew for Pharisee and also for separate ] was a very unusual Zionist group, organized both as a secret fraternity and as a reform movement. . . .

    A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship. At the initiation ceremony the head of the Order informed him:

    You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life-dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation... It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

    The initiate responded by swearing:

    Before this council, in the name of all that I hold dear and holy, I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation, . . . and the ideals of the Jewish people.

    To this end I dedicate myself in behalf of the Jews, my people, and in behalf of all mankind.

    To this end I enroll myself in the fellowship of the Parushim. I pledge myself utterly to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims. Amen.
     
    Here's what Rosen said of his Brandeis in a brief interview during the Democratic convention in Phila recently:

    [Interviewer Peter Slen]: Was Brandeis the first Jewish Justice on the Supreme Court?
    Rosen: He was indeed. There was some antisemitism in the opposition to his nomination, but I argue -- He is my hero in every respect. . . . he was also more influential than anyone else in persuading Woodrow Wilson and the British to recognize the Jewish homeland in Palestine. He is a hero, he is a prophet, and it [my book] is a short and passionate case for why Brandeis matters today.
     
    Brandeis was sitting on the US Supreme Court while pledged to pursue the interests of the Jewish people and the zionist project.
    Rosen is director of the US Congress-mandated and initially funded National Constitution Center; his hero is "most important" for having served the Jewish people and the cause of another state.

    Wilson was a fool -- it is because he was a fool that he was selected to run for president. He was easily manipulated if not indeed blackmailed to appoint Brandeis -- a case was made by Benjamin Freedman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c that Sam Untermyer blackmailed Wilson over some love letters of Wilson's, but it's hard to prove that claim since the records are buried in the (U S taxpayer-funded) Woodrow Wilson Center, where only select scholars are permitted access to certain materials at the Center. Jane Harman is director of the Wilson Center.

    In Sarah Schmidt's reporting, above, mention is made of the fact that both men and women can be Parushim, but since the organization is secret, the American people, who pay Harman's salary, cannot know if she is a Parushim.

    Also don't recall if Brandeis accompanied Wilson to Versailles, but know for a fact that Bernard Baruch did.
    Edwin Black wrote in The Transfer Agreement that "Zionist Jews returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of protection of minority rights in Europe."

    Brandeis fulfilled his vows -- to zionist Jews.

    I distrust clergymen and their sons, including Wilson. Not to mention poly-sci PhDs. Too often they meddle in everyone else’s business without properly conducting their own affairs.

    I’m not sure he was as much of puppet as you suggest (at least before wife Edith took the wheel), but I’m no expert.

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.
     
    AGREE that Weizmann was of primary importance in getting the Balfour declaration; Brandeis was necessary to get USA buy-in: Weizmann's gamble was that the British would win WWI, and the British had already lost numerous battles -- Niall Ferguson actually approaches humorous when he discusses how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.

    But then along came Chaim.

    check out Leonard Stein's bio of the Balfour Declaration. https://www.amazon.com/Balfour-Declaration-Leonard-Stein/dp/9652234486/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1471287887&sr=8-7&keywords=balfour+declaration
    Stein worked w/ Weizmann for many years, including during Chaim's project of getting British gov. to give Palestine to Jews.

    The cordite thing is a charade; working through his Jewish contacts, including Brandeis, to get USA into the war that the British could not win alone, was Weizmann's contribution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Dissident says:

    the invasion of Iraq, [...] was pushed by [...] the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies,[...]

    Wouldn’t that more accurately be “the Zionist lobbies”?

    Not all Jews are Zionist (and not all Zionists are Jews). Zionism is actually a grave violation of Judaism, which forbids Jews from establishing sovereignty over the Land of Israel before their divine redemption at the hands of the Messiah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Well, one thing is for sure: if we ever had a serious war on our hands and had to reinstate a draft, that giant sucking sound you hear would be the entire population of male illegals (and probably green card holders too) rushing for the border to GTFO before they got put into a uniform against their will.

    My sons and grandsons are totally “legal”. They trust me, and will consume what I serve them. Should certain idiots instigate a “serious” war, I would not hesitate to serve “mickey finns” to my boys and GTFO with them – Canada or Mexico, machts nichts. I suspect that every mother in Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc., considers any operation that endangers her children a “serious” war, and I stand with those women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @annamaria
    "...the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them."
    The paper warns implicitly that unsupervised imbeciles could use armaments at hand because the imbeciles' career interests and petty thinking would not allow them to realize the scale of consequences.

    Anna,

    My intent was to say that, if nukes were used, there could be no escape for anybody involved.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president’s name on them. And we planned the same thing for them. Leonid Brezhnev would have a had a succession of warheads detonated right over his supernatural eyebrows.

    The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash."
    Here is a problem --
    1. The psychopaths-in-charge are accustomed to have everything fixed for them by other people.
    2. The psychopaths' immediate objective - money and power - could easily go into conflict with the humanity' global interests. Actually, this conflict is obvious already.
    Look at Morell, this perfect exemplar of "perfumed princes" that know nothing, have no field experience, and would sacrifice anybody for their careers.
    Initiation of a nuclear conflict could happen because of the most pedestrian causes, like creation of an atmosphere of intense mistrust between nuclear powers. The latter is what the US State Dept is really good at: look at ISIS in Syria, Kiev junta, commotion in the South China Sea, agitation in the tiny Baltic states - there are stamps of the US vicious belligerence all over. How many Arkhipovs we can count on?
    The only solution to the imminent danger of worldwide annihilation of life should be a steady process of dismantling of nuclear armament. There is no other solutions! The US had plenty of time to start and enforce this process during the last Russian revolution. This opportunity has been wasted by an army of war profiteers like Cheney and Breedlove and political opportunists like ziocons. The West has lost completely the mechanisms of accountability on the top. This is the mother of all problems.
    , @annamaria
    The psychopaths-in-charge have a twisted understanding that everything could be repaired. The latter is not true, but the psychopaths-in-charge are not able to accept such a proposition because they are, as a rule, nincompoops professionally (except professional thieves from FedReserve) and they believe that "management decides everything."
    Because of the unaccountability, there are swarms of professionally incompetent "deciders" in the highest echelon of the US government. Bad omen.
    , @MarkinLA
    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president’s name on them. And we planned the same thing for them.

    This is why the ABM treaties were so restrictive. It is also why the Russians were having such a huge cow over Reagan's Star Wars program. The idea is that a functional missile shield increases your first strike capability to the point of it possibly being worth the risk. The thinking goes like this:

    Lets say you can knock out a missile with 90% reliability. If you launch a first strike and take out 90% of Russia's nuclear forces before they launch then they have 10% of their forces in the air and 90% of them are knocked out by your missile defense capability. That means only 1% of Russia's missiles make it to the US while Russia is completely destroyed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. annamaria says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Anna,

    My intent was to say that, if nukes were used, there could be no escape for anybody involved.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president's name on them. And we planned the same thing for them. Leonid Brezhnev would have a had a succession of warheads detonated right over his supernatural eyebrows.

    The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.

    “The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.”
    Here is a problem –
    1. The psychopaths-in-charge are accustomed to have everything fixed for them by other people.
    2. The psychopaths’ immediate objective – money and power – could easily go into conflict with the humanity’ global interests. Actually, this conflict is obvious already.
    Look at Morell, this perfect exemplar of “perfumed princes” that know nothing, have no field experience, and would sacrifice anybody for their careers.
    Initiation of a nuclear conflict could happen because of the most pedestrian causes, like creation of an atmosphere of intense mistrust between nuclear powers. The latter is what the US State Dept is really good at: look at ISIS in Syria, Kiev junta, commotion in the South China Sea, agitation in the tiny Baltic states – there are stamps of the US vicious belligerence all over. How many Arkhipovs we can count on?
    The only solution to the imminent danger of worldwide annihilation of life should be a steady process of dismantling of nuclear armament. There is no other solutions! The US had plenty of time to start and enforce this process during the last Russian revolution. This opportunity has been wasted by an army of war profiteers like Cheney and Breedlove and political opportunists like ziocons. The West has lost completely the mechanisms of accountability on the top. This is the mother of all problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Look at Morell, this perfect exemplar of “perfumed princes” that know nothing, have no field experience, and would sacrifice anybody for their careers."
     
    If it is any consolation, if Morell gets his way and things subsequently spin out of control, he will have only 4 minutes or so to get out of Dodge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. maria says:

    [A long-time commenter calling himself "Aaron Gross," who is frequently quite critical of "anti-Semitism," has apparently here published a comment under the new handle "maria" that seems to take a very different position on that exact same topic.

    An attempt at serious deception, especially when made in such an incompetent fashion, should be considered when evaluating all past and future comments by commenter "Aaron Gross."

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/Aaron+Gross/ ]

    It’s the scumbag jews, as always.
    They want war with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.
    And they will certainly get it with hillary – they have bought and paid for her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Come now, moderator, you merely caught Aaron in the midst of his transition! Where's your LGBTQ-sensitivity?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. RobinG says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for the link to that comedy act at the Democrat National Convention. (Did you see what faces that were being panned behind the fatfaced general orator when he spoke of all the wonderful young people?)

    More relevant to your and Fred's case is what Ray McGovern had to say about Morell. But I suspect that Hillary would be amply protected against Morell and his kind by having, not a sensible spouse, but a very experienced and sharp one.

    Consider the scene at the Clinton breakfast table during that December weekend when Hillary and Bill are having a really frank chat about who should be given even the time of day. Ah there's mighty Mike Morell...should I allow it to appear that writing favourable slop in the Times gets rewarded, even once? Well yeeess a brave young warrior like him could be a very suitable Special Envoy to the badlands of Afghanistan where he brandishes his Colt 45 and talks the Taliban into submission. OK OK I think Administrator of the Marshall Islands might just about do it....

    So why didn’t “experienced and sharp” Bill insist that she post Fucktoria Nudelwoman to the Marshall Islands, instead of endorsing her 5-year campaign to undermine Yanukovych and the Russian-Ukrainian economic relationship?

    Why waste the energy speculating on Hillary’s cabinet choices when there is so much track record as evidence? Hildabeast advocates (and has, for a long time) the “No-Fly Zone” in Syria, which translates as US free-fire zone to enable Morell to get his Russian kills in that airspace.

    The US public has swallowed so much disinformation about Ukraine and Syria, even a radical stomach-pumping may not save them. Their perception of themselves as exceptional and Putin as evil may lead to the worst results.

    PS
    The first day of the DNC convention, about 4 of the speakers said the same thing, i.e. they had nothing favorable to say about Hillary besides coming out of law school and doing some non-profit work for children. The irony, OMG, that on the same night they trotted out that old ghoul, “it was worth it” Madeleine Albright who approved the murder-by-sanction of half a million Iraqi children. It was not only Obama who created ISIS: Bill Clinton and both Bushes share the development rights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. […] Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia – fred reed […]

    Read More
  191. @Incitatus
    I distrust clergymen and their sons, including Wilson. Not to mention poly-sci PhDs. Too often they meddle in everyone else's business without properly conducting their own affairs.

    I’m not sure he was as much of puppet as you suggest (at least before wife Edith took the wheel), but I’m no expert.

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.

    AGREE that Weizmann was of primary importance in getting the Balfour declaration; Brandeis was necessary to get USA buy-in: Weizmann’s gamble was that the British would win WWI, and the British had already lost numerous battles — Niall Ferguson actually approaches humorous when he discusses how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.

    But then along came Chaim.

    check out Leonard Stein’s bio of the Balfour Declaration. https://www.amazon.com/Balfour-Declaration-Leonard-Stein/dp/9652234486/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1471287887&sr=8-7&keywords=balfour+declaration
    Stein worked w/ Weizmann for many years, including during Chaim’s project of getting British gov. to give Palestine to Jews.

    The cordite thing is a charade; working through his Jewish contacts, including Brandeis, to get USA into the war that the British could not win alone, was Weizmann’s contribution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “...how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.”
     
    Douglas Haig is the sublime example. But each nation had rivals. Von Falkenhayn probably killed more of his own men than the enemy. It’s hard to think of a conflict with wider gulf between grunt valor and bilious staff indifference.

    I’ve yet to read Ferguson. My impression is of a celebrity historian (emphasis on the former). That may change when I have a chance to read him (then again it may not).

    The theory Brits would have been better off losing the war(s) is one of those entertaining ‘what ifs.’ Buchanan and others have made tidy fortunes on such titillation. Their work is hard to take seriously. What if they’re wrong? What if they’re right? We don’t have time machines to correct mistakes. I’m not hard to please. I’ll settle for well-written factual history based on current research - with dates (harder to find every year).

    The Balfour Declaration: gifts of other people’s land was almost a habit for the Brits, as it probably is for any empire. Cromwell in Ireland, the Ohio Company in Western Pennsylvania (Lawrence and George Washington no less), le Grand Dérangement in Acadie/Nova Scotia. There are too many examples. We inherited the mantle in Manifest Destiny. Been to an Indian Reservation lately?

    I’d be happy if US aid to Israel was used as restitution for lost land (the US defense industry would suffer most). I’d be happier if US aid (especially for weapons) ceased and Israel alone contributed to such a fund.

    George Washington was right to warn against ‘passionate attachments.” They’re bad for us and equally bad for Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. 5371 says:
    @maria
    [A long-time commenter calling himself "Aaron Gross," who is frequently quite critical of "anti-Semitism," has apparently here published a comment under the new handle "maria" that seems to take a very different position on that exact same topic.

    An attempt at serious deception, especially when made in such an incompetent fashion, should be considered when evaluating all past and future comments by commenter "Aaron Gross."

    http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/Aaron+Gross/ ]


    It's the scumbag jews, as always.
    They want war with Russia, Iran, Syria, etc.
    And they will certainly get it with hillary - they have bought and paid for her.

    Come now, moderator, you merely caught Aaron in the midst of his transition! Where’s your LGBTQ-sensitivity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm glad you slipped off my Commenters to Skip list during a change of phones :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @annamaria
    "The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash."
    Here is a problem --
    1. The psychopaths-in-charge are accustomed to have everything fixed for them by other people.
    2. The psychopaths' immediate objective - money and power - could easily go into conflict with the humanity' global interests. Actually, this conflict is obvious already.
    Look at Morell, this perfect exemplar of "perfumed princes" that know nothing, have no field experience, and would sacrifice anybody for their careers.
    Initiation of a nuclear conflict could happen because of the most pedestrian causes, like creation of an atmosphere of intense mistrust between nuclear powers. The latter is what the US State Dept is really good at: look at ISIS in Syria, Kiev junta, commotion in the South China Sea, agitation in the tiny Baltic states - there are stamps of the US vicious belligerence all over. How many Arkhipovs we can count on?
    The only solution to the imminent danger of worldwide annihilation of life should be a steady process of dismantling of nuclear armament. There is no other solutions! The US had plenty of time to start and enforce this process during the last Russian revolution. This opportunity has been wasted by an army of war profiteers like Cheney and Breedlove and political opportunists like ziocons. The West has lost completely the mechanisms of accountability on the top. This is the mother of all problems.

    “Look at Morell, this perfect exemplar of “perfumed princes” that know nothing, have no field experience, and would sacrifice anybody for their careers.”

    If it is any consolation, if Morell gets his way and things subsequently spin out of control, he will have only 4 minutes or so to get out of Dodge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. TheJester says:
    @TheJester
    I agree about (the lack of) US effectiveness in MEA. Not impressive. Indeed, performance is so bad that it spawns rumors and conspiracy theories that the US is/must be on the side of ISIS. And we are also losing the war in Afghanistan against guerilla bands of goat herders.

    With a small percentage of the force, the Russians were able to do more in two months in Syria in air interdiction operations against ISIS than the United States and its so-called coalition did in two years. Rack up the two orders of battle and the lack of effectiveness on the part of the coalition is hard to understand.

    Before their operation in Syria, Hussein Obama labeled Russia a second-rate regional power. After their operation in Syria, he labeled it a world power with the second most effective military in the world. I would not want to try to find out who was really first and who was really second.

    Agree. I’ve spent some time in the books boning up on the history of Al-Qaeda. As you say, it started as a somewhat too-clever (which means stupid) move on the part of the CIA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against, first, the Soviets in Afghanistan and, second, an attack on the Soviet motherland via the Islamic-majority republics in the southern Soviet Union.

    The insanity! Sources relate that while the US was fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it was at the same time ferrying Al-Qaeda jihadists into the southern republics of what used to be the Soviet Union and further north into the republics that are still part of Russia. I guess, as in Syria today, there are good terrorists and bad terrorists … and it is very often hard to tell the difference. Indeed, the lists might change from day-to-day.

    In their typical shortsighted manner, the CIA (in what is almost always the case) failed to anticipate “blowback” and/or the general consequences of “letting the genie out of the bottle”.

    US foreign policy is singularly responsible for spreading Wahhabi fundamentalism throughout the Middle East; the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria … and the potential destruction of Western European civilization via massive immigration from the Islamic MENA states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    It's a lot more complicated than that...keep reading. Start with Qtub. Since the 80's, US decided that the whole Caliphate idea was a joke...and, yeah look at all the destruction/quagmires/the destruction of Europe as we know it now.
    , @Stebbing Heuer
    Gladio B.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Lagertha says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated Fred. Hillary C does not know her a** from a hole in the ground. Trump on the other hand has built skyscrapers and golf courses and knows a thing or two about personal and business relations. Like Trump says, how about being friends with Russia? We may never go to the altar but that does not mean we cannot have mutual respect and trade with one another and get along. Why view Russia as a threat? How about we stay out of their back yard, they stay out of ours, and we respect one another and be on amicable terms? The Cold War is over. If you asked your average citizen on either side, neither would want any kind of war for crying out loud. But they have more sense than our "leadership" in Washington, which probably is the world leader in corrupt idiots per capita--we're #1. I have listened to many things Putin has said -- he is not a warmonger and is not looking for a fight. Could we be smart for a change and not give him one? What is it with the endless war morons in the Pentagon, White House, and elsewhere? They tend to be think tank morons who want to play global geopolitical strategy games, and not military men and, like Fred says, never have worn boots. For God's sake people do not vote for Hillary, that chicken hawk corrupt lying idiot (who hates the military) would double our debt and get us into WW III.

    No one remembers Finlandization. Finland is still free and has played the nicey-nice game with Russia a long time. EU sanctions are very destructive to the economy now(trade with Russia 25% of GDP), but the EU overlords will not relent. I will definitely vote for Trump since he will continue the nicey-nice game.

    It kinda’ angers me that the supercilious talking heads in DC disregard Finland’s long, artful way of getting along. And, if there was ever a country that fought to it’s last bloody breath in WW2, against impossible odds, well, we know a thing or two. OT: there were some taunts this summer (made the news but don’t have the energy to find/cite) by “unpredictable, scary” Finnish men at the migrants lounging around in the city, telling them to “be a man and return to your country and fight for it’s independence.” Finnish men are weirdly, a bit scary for the migrants (much taller) – throughout history they have been fighters and love their knives and axes…o.k., that’s a stereotype :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Lagertha says:
    @TheJester
    Agree. I've spent some time in the books boning up on the history of Al-Qaeda. As you say, it started as a somewhat too-clever (which means stupid) move on the part of the CIA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against, first, the Soviets in Afghanistan and, second, an attack on the Soviet motherland via the Islamic-majority republics in the southern Soviet Union.

    The insanity! Sources relate that while the US was fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it was at the same time ferrying Al-Qaeda jihadists into the southern republics of what used to be the Soviet Union and further north into the republics that are still part of Russia. I guess, as in Syria today, there are good terrorists and bad terrorists ... and it is very often hard to tell the difference. Indeed, the lists might change from day-to-day.

    In their typical shortsighted manner, the CIA (in what is almost always the case) failed to anticipate "blowback" and/or the general consequences of "letting the genie out of the bottle".

    US foreign policy is singularly responsible for spreading Wahhabi fundamentalism throughout the Middle East; the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria ... and the potential destruction of Western European civilization via massive immigration from the Islamic MENA states.

    It’s a lot more complicated than that…keep reading. Start with Qtub. Since the 80′s, US decided that the whole Caliphate idea was a joke…and, yeah look at all the destruction/quagmires/the destruction of Europe as we know it now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Lagertha says:
    @Pat the Rat
    Air power has been decisive. I think it is going to fail now unless you are talking missiles.

    If the Russian air defences are as good as they claim to be, the birds will be blown out of the sky and the carriers will be sunk.

    If air defence improves it may well be that armies and tanks will be as important as they ever were in the past.

    I do think America, Australia and UK are extremely vulnerable to underwater missile technology that was in the news last year, that looks impossible to defend against.

    Yes, the nuclear submarines are “the thing.” Back when Russia was flush with money and oligarchs were jetting/boating around the world, at least they put tons of money into their subs/technology. My grandpa would say,”the one who rules the seas, rules the world.” Did anyone else notice that there are never Independence Day-like movies with subs battling aliens? I guess subs are still sort of boring….boring but deadly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. annamaria says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Anna,

    My intent was to say that, if nukes were used, there could be no escape for anybody involved.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president's name on them. And we planned the same thing for them. Leonid Brezhnev would have a had a succession of warheads detonated right over his supernatural eyebrows.

    The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.

    The psychopaths-in-charge have a twisted understanding that everything could be repaired. The latter is not true, but the psychopaths-in-charge are not able to accept such a proposition because they are, as a rule, nincompoops professionally (except professional thieves from FedReserve) and they believe that “management decides everything.”
    Because of the unaccountability, there are swarms of professionally incompetent “deciders” in the highest echelon of the US government. Bad omen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. MarkinLA says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Anna,

    My intent was to say that, if nukes were used, there could be no escape for anybody involved.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president's name on them. And we planned the same thing for them. Leonid Brezhnev would have a had a succession of warheads detonated right over his supernatural eyebrows.

    The DeeCee guys may be imbeciles one and all, but they know that a nuclear exchange means 100 percent chance of their being annihilated in a flash.

    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president’s name on them. And we planned the same thing for them.

    This is why the ABM treaties were so restrictive. It is also why the Russians were having such a huge cow over Reagan’s Star Wars program. The idea is that a functional missile shield increases your first strike capability to the point of it possibly being worth the risk. The thinking goes like this:

    Lets say you can knock out a missile with 90% reliability. If you launch a first strike and take out 90% of Russia’s nuclear forces before they launch then they have 10% of their forces in the air and 90% of them are knocked out by your missile defense capability. That means only 1% of Russia’s missiles make it to the US while Russia is completely destroyed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Yours is a simple but good explanation of the offensive capability of the "missile defense", even if the US ABMD sites in Poland and Romania (so far) do not also sport nuclear missiles, as Putin suggested.

    There is no doubt that the US masters of Eastern Europe will continue adding offensive strategic nuclear missile sites, which they, in the usual Anglo-style of BS, call "defense". My very broad guess is that the mentioned two sites could achieve at best only about 40-50% shoot-down rate. Therefore these sites are much better for launching nuclear missiles into Russia then for shooting them down. Expect a similar site in Ukraine as soon as Ukraine is "admitted" into NATO. These are offensive military installations sold to domestic population as defense (what is new, in the US the MIC has long ago warped the meaning of the word).

    All those who mention risk of nuclear confrontation need to consider that the latte drinking psychopatic class of Washington wants to achieve such a level of treat to the administrative center of Russia Moscow to get Russia to capitulate without having to launch the First Strike. There are two general problems with this dumb thinking:
    1) the Russians are not known to capitulate in "hopeless" tactical or strategic conditions (Leningrad is just one example),
    2) unintended consequences almost always overpower the military plans, or nobody knows what may come out of threatening Russia with a now possible First Strike.

    Finally, the Russians are very actively developing the hypersonic-cruise missiles (even submarine launched) which would not be possible to shoot down with any technology of the next hundred years or more. Therefore, the Zioconish dream of planetal domination cannot be achieved by military means then only by assaination of Putin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Incitatus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Weizmann appears much more influential than Brandeis. The role of acetone in the production of cordite was vital and, if I recall correctly, Chaim held all the cards.
     
    AGREE that Weizmann was of primary importance in getting the Balfour declaration; Brandeis was necessary to get USA buy-in: Weizmann's gamble was that the British would win WWI, and the British had already lost numerous battles -- Niall Ferguson actually approaches humorous when he discusses how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.

    But then along came Chaim.

    check out Leonard Stein's bio of the Balfour Declaration. https://www.amazon.com/Balfour-Declaration-Leonard-Stein/dp/9652234486/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1471287887&sr=8-7&keywords=balfour+declaration
    Stein worked w/ Weizmann for many years, including during Chaim's project of getting British gov. to give Palestine to Jews.

    The cordite thing is a charade; working through his Jewish contacts, including Brandeis, to get USA into the war that the British could not win alone, was Weizmann's contribution.

    “…how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.”

    Douglas Haig is the sublime example. But each nation had rivals. Von Falkenhayn probably killed more of his own men than the enemy. It’s hard to think of a conflict with wider gulf between grunt valor and bilious staff indifference.

    I’ve yet to read Ferguson. My impression is of a celebrity historian (emphasis on the former). That may change when I have a chance to read him (then again it may not).

    The theory Brits would have been better off losing the war(s) is one of those entertaining ‘what ifs.’ Buchanan and others have made tidy fortunes on such titillation. Their work is hard to take seriously. What if they’re wrong? What if they’re right? We don’t have time machines to correct mistakes. I’m not hard to please. I’ll settle for well-written factual history based on current research – with dates (harder to find every year).

    The Balfour Declaration: gifts of other people’s land was almost a habit for the Brits, as it probably is for any empire. Cromwell in Ireland, the Ohio Company in Western Pennsylvania (Lawrence and George Washington no less), le Grand Dérangement in Acadie/Nova Scotia. There are too many examples. We inherited the mantle in Manifest Destiny. Been to an Indian Reservation lately?

    I’d be happy if US aid to Israel was used as restitution for lost land (the US defense industry would suffer most). I’d be happier if US aid (especially for weapons) ceased and Israel alone contributed to such a fund.

    George Washington was right to warn against ‘passionate attachments.” They’re bad for us and equally bad for Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I don't seek to make or refute any particular argument but just to try out an improving quibble.

    The Balfour Declaration doesn't really meet your description of giving away other people's land I think. Palestine was I understand for most of 2000 years part of the Syrian province of successive empires with no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders who grew olives or grapes and some psstoralism on lands they certainly had no good Ottoman title to. Naturally savvy westerners like the finsnciers of early Zionism latched on to the small amounts of freehold title (even now only about 7 per cent of Israel from memory) and bought it up from absentee landlords thereby creating an economic magnet for Arabs as well as Jews so the effects of Zionism in 1917 could have looked quite benign. And creating a "national home" in a territory which was nobody's nation but continuing its status as province in a new kind of empire (League of Nations Mandate) must have seemed like nothing more than, say, the British Raj assuring the Parsees that they would be protected on buildong their community structures in Bombay (my imagined example).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Kay Gibi says:
    @Rehmat
    The so-called 50-year Cold War proved beyond doubt that American and Russian war rhetoric were for public consumption only. Both are the remaining Western colonialist powers and their 'crying wolf' is to protect their sphere of interest. Five-year-old Syrian bloodshed is the living proof of that strategy.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/28/american-jewish-envoy-to-stop-war-in-syria/

    You made a lot of great points. By all means do continue. People need to wake up NOW before it’s too late and commenters vomiting Pentagon propaganda should rethink making silly comments about Putin and Russia. Take the time to learn about who they are telling you to hate. Your lives literally depend on it.

    Hillary promoted plenty of wars as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya with the highest Human Development Rate in all of Africa about to help the rest of Africa free themselves from colonialist oppression. Couldn’t have that could we? Now it is a terrorist hell.

    If that wasn’t bad enough, she sent weapons and terrorists to Syria to do the same thing there, getting the US ambassador killed in the process.

    And she was the one who agitated horny Bill into destroying Yugoslavia.

    She is unfit physically and mentally for the job. She has major anger problems. Seek and you shall find her crimes…a lying liar that lies.

    Do you want this spastic wacko’s finger on the nuclear trigger? She doesn’t believe in settling issues with diplomacy, but with war and the world will get it if she is elected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Kay Gibi says:
    @TheJester
    Excellent article Fred,

    I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 ... and with that example no more need be said.

    Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory ... rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

    There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war ... and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

    Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

    I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled "Operation GLASS" as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary's hand on the red button? ... a fourth grade of insanity.

    I might add one more Russian doctrine: shut the lights off. Disable!

    A nice non-violent response to incursions. See USS Donald Duck (I mean Cook).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    War with Russia if Hillary wins?

    I don’t see it.

    I think Hillary is playing up the ‘Putin is Hitler’ card to win over Jewish money and support. She knows what happened with Jews and Putin in Russia in the 90s.
    She knows why Jews are upset, and she knows Jews run the US and can make or break presidents.

    So, to become president, she has to play tough against Russia.

    But is that what she really wants in power?

    I dunno. Maybe, but maybe not.

    It’s like Nixon had to play staunch anti-communist to win the presidency. But he wanted to end the war in Vietnam, do detente with Russia, and make peace with China.

    Reagan talked very tough, but when Gorby came on the scene, he was ready to deal.

    Anyway, what politicians do to become president is rarely what they do as president.
    To be president, you need the backing of those who can provide most support.
    And in the US, it is Jews. So, Clinton plays whore to Jewish power.
    But as president, she might actually want saner relations with Russia.

    She is Lady Macbeth. She is devious and never to be trusted.

    I don’t think she smashed Libya and Syria cuz she wanted to. It was a way to show her credentials to the Globalists that she is a willing whore of the Agenda.
    But as president, she might not act that way. She may moderate her position on Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. @TheJester
    Agree. I've spent some time in the books boning up on the history of Al-Qaeda. As you say, it started as a somewhat too-clever (which means stupid) move on the part of the CIA to use Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against, first, the Soviets in Afghanistan and, second, an attack on the Soviet motherland via the Islamic-majority republics in the southern Soviet Union.

    The insanity! Sources relate that while the US was fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it was at the same time ferrying Al-Qaeda jihadists into the southern republics of what used to be the Soviet Union and further north into the republics that are still part of Russia. I guess, as in Syria today, there are good terrorists and bad terrorists ... and it is very often hard to tell the difference. Indeed, the lists might change from day-to-day.

    In their typical shortsighted manner, the CIA (in what is almost always the case) failed to anticipate "blowback" and/or the general consequences of "letting the genie out of the bottle".

    US foreign policy is singularly responsible for spreading Wahhabi fundamentalism throughout the Middle East; the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria ... and the potential destruction of Western European civilization via massive immigration from the Islamic MENA states.

    Gladio B.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Kiza says:
    @MarkinLA
    One of the things that made mutual assured destruction effective was the knowledge that the Russians had a few nuclear missiles with the president’s name on them. And we planned the same thing for them.

    This is why the ABM treaties were so restrictive. It is also why the Russians were having such a huge cow over Reagan's Star Wars program. The idea is that a functional missile shield increases your first strike capability to the point of it possibly being worth the risk. The thinking goes like this:

    Lets say you can knock out a missile with 90% reliability. If you launch a first strike and take out 90% of Russia's nuclear forces before they launch then they have 10% of their forces in the air and 90% of them are knocked out by your missile defense capability. That means only 1% of Russia's missiles make it to the US while Russia is completely destroyed.

    Yours is a simple but good explanation of the offensive capability of the “missile defense”, even if the US ABMD sites in Poland and Romania (so far) do not also sport nuclear missiles, as Putin suggested.

    There is no doubt that the US masters of Eastern Europe will continue adding offensive strategic nuclear missile sites, which they, in the usual Anglo-style of BS, call “defense”. My very broad guess is that the mentioned two sites could achieve at best only about 40-50% shoot-down rate. Therefore these sites are much better for launching nuclear missiles into Russia then for shooting them down. Expect a similar site in Ukraine as soon as Ukraine is “admitted” into NATO. These are offensive military installations sold to domestic population as defense (what is new, in the US the MIC has long ago warped the meaning of the word).

    All those who mention risk of nuclear confrontation need to consider that the latte drinking psychopatic class of Washington wants to achieve such a level of treat to the administrative center of Russia Moscow to get Russia to capitulate without having to launch the First Strike. There are two general problems with this dumb thinking:
    1) the Russians are not known to capitulate in “hopeless” tactical or strategic conditions (Leningrad is just one example),
    2) unintended consequences almost always overpower the military plans, or nobody knows what may come out of threatening Russia with a now possible First Strike.

    Finally, the Russians are very actively developing the hypersonic-cruise missiles (even submarine launched) which would not be possible to shoot down with any technology of the next hundred years or more. Therefore, the Zioconish dream of planetal domination cannot be achieved by military means then only by assaination of Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Avery says:

    {My very broad guess is that the mentioned two sites could achieve at best only about 40-50% shoot-down rate.}

    Hi Kiza:

    Your 40%-50% success rate is quite generous.
    All US tests of intercepting ICBMs have been failures.
    And the tests were phony, because the interceptor was given the exact trajectory and other info of the target.

    One operational missile defense system, the misnomed Iron Dome, which operates in somewhat realistic war conditions has a success rate of 5%, according to physicist Theodore Postol, a professor of science technology and national security policy at MIT, who did a very detailed analysis. And what Iron Dome defends against is primitive, homemade Hamas missiles. Even then, it barely hits 5% of the missiles.

    There is no way NATO missile defense can intercept anywhere near 40%-50% of Russian nuke warheads. The newest ones release dozens of decoys, and the real one has a random trajectory at the terminal stage.

    The Neocon psychopaths who think a nuke war with Russia can be won are either insane, or know it can’t, but are warmongering to feed the insatiable MIC. The problem is, with all these offensive missile “defense” systems in place, some nut someday might think of using it against Russia….and then it’s lights out for everybody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I think that you underestimate the Hamas/Hezbolah missiles in this respect. Being home-made makes them almost as unpredictable as those deliberately designed to have unpredictable trajectory - the new Russian MIRV Bulava. The maximum 40-50% success rate for ABMD would be against the existing that is Soviet era missiles and in a few decades from now, not against Bulava. In the near future both random trajectory MIRVs and ABMD will be advancing, but I agree with you and thousands of very smart scientists who claimed that ABMD is a pipe dream. Since it could never reach even the 99.9% success rate, it is a waste of funds. And who in the US wants to be the 0.1%?

    But 30 supposedly ABMD sites surrounding Russia and China, armed with hypersonic offensive nuclear missiles is a different story (US and China are working on this military technology also). The goal is to get Russia "used" to the existence of these sites on its borders, and decide later what kind of military capability to add to them, what could hurt Russia the most.

    Russia should respond by placing its own "ABMD" sites near Alaska and in Cuba.
    , @MarkinLA
    Reagan's Star Wars had some pie-in-the-sky ideas like the X-ray laser fed by a nuclear blast but it did have one interesting and possibly useful one - a space based rail gun. The gun also had an intelligent projectile to make in-flight corrections. However, the projectile was supposed to withstand 100,000 gs of acceleration so something moving that fast was unlikely to need much correction.

    I don't know it there were any launches.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    {My very broad guess is that the mentioned two sites could achieve at best only about 40-50% shoot-down rate.}

    Hi Kiza:

    Your 40%-50% success rate is quite generous.
    All US tests of intercepting ICBMs have been failures.
    And the tests were phony, because the interceptor was given the exact trajectory and other info of the target.

    One operational missile defense system, the misnomed Iron Dome, which operates in somewhat realistic war conditions has a success rate of 5%, according to physicist Theodore Postol, a professor of science technology and national security policy at MIT, who did a very detailed analysis. And what Iron Dome defends against is primitive, homemade Hamas missiles. Even then, it barely hits 5% of the missiles.

    There is no way NATO missile defense can intercept anywhere near 40%-50% of Russian nuke warheads. The newest ones release dozens of decoys, and the real one has a random trajectory at the terminal stage.

    The Neocon psychopaths who think a nuke war with Russia can be won are either insane, or know it can't, but are warmongering to feed the insatiable MIC. The problem is, with all these offensive missile "defense" systems in place, some nut someday might think of using it against Russia....and then it's lights out for everybody.

    I think that you underestimate the Hamas/Hezbolah missiles in this respect. Being home-made makes them almost as unpredictable as those deliberately designed to have unpredictable trajectory – the new Russian MIRV Bulava. The maximum 40-50% success rate for ABMD would be against the existing that is Soviet era missiles and in a few decades from now, not against Bulava. In the near future both random trajectory MIRVs and ABMD will be advancing, but I agree with you and thousands of very smart scientists who claimed that ABMD is a pipe dream. Since it could never reach even the 99.9% success rate, it is a waste of funds. And who in the US wants to be the 0.1%?

    But 30 supposedly ABMD sites surrounding Russia and China, armed with hypersonic offensive nuclear missiles is a different story (US and China are working on this military technology also). The goal is to get Russia “used” to the existence of these sites on its borders, and decide later what kind of military capability to add to them, what could hurt Russia the most.

    Russia should respond by placing its own “ABMD” sites near Alaska and in Cuba.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Peter says:

    Just a note of clarification. “Germany began WWI” after an allied terrorist from Serbia murdered the next king (kaiser) of Austria and his wife. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Russia mobilized troops and called on France to mobilize and France and Germany declared war on each other the same day. Germany only attacked France after both France and Great Britain had declared war on her in the west and Russian troops were mobilized for fighting in the east.

    Same in WW II. Germany attacked France after France and England had declared war on her and were moving troops up to the German border.

    Israel attacks it’s neighbors constantly without kicking off a world war. The USA attacks countries all the time without kicking off a world war. Austria-Hungary’s attack on tiny Serbia had nothing to do with France, England or the USA and would not have started a world war except that these countries wanted a war with Germany.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II oversaw Germany emerge as the leading technological, science and military power in the world. France, sought revenge for losing the ethnically German area Alsace-Lorraine to Germany 45 years earlier and Great Britain was looking to start yet another war because Germany had surpassed her.

    Between 1871 (Franco-Prussian war) and WW I, Germany was only involved in a few minor skirmishes. England was involved in wars all over the world, behaving the way the US does today. If anyone had and inferiority complex, it was the English, seeing themselves overtaken. They finally destroyed their own empire and the rest of Europe when a corrupt politician by the name of Winston Churchill was paid a large sum of money by various wealthy Jews in 1936 to attack Germany. This he did, while Hitler repeated offered England peace, even an alliance. And the whole time Hitler was offering peace, England’s “most outstanding liar” was telling the world Hitler wanted to conquer England and take over the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    ““Germany began WWI” after an allied terrorist from Serbia murdered the next king (kaiser) of Austria and his wife. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Russia mobilized troops and called on France to mobilize and France and Germany declared war on each other the same day. Germany only attacked France after both France and Great Britain had declared war on her in the west and Russian troops were mobilized for fighting in the east.”
     
    Too much Sauerkraut last night? This is getting tedious.

    • 28 Jun 1914 - Slav nationalist Gavrilo Princip kills Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 - Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;
    • 16 Aug 1914 - Germany captures Liège;
    • 25 Aug 1914 - Germany sacks Leuvan, burns the famous medieval library, destroys 2,000 civilian dwellings, expels it’s entire population (10,000);
    • 23 Aug 1914 - German troops reach the French border town of Mauberge;

    The first declarations of war are issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions are launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium.

    “Same in WW II. Germany attacked France after France and England had declared war on her and were moving troops up to the German border.”
     
    Poor innocent Nazi Germany. No need to mention the Dollfuß assassination, illegal remilitarization of the Rhineland, illegal rearmament, Condor Legion, Anschluß, digestion of Sudentenland and then the theft of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Nor the invasion of Poland. We get it. War was all the fault of evil France and England. Poor innocent Adolf.

    “Kaiser Wilhelm II oversaw Germany emerge as the leading technological, science and military power in the world.”
     
    Then why, after declaring war and launching invasions, did übermensch Germany lose? Let me guess. You must agree with revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes, who visited Willie in 1926. Willie "was happy to know that I [Barnes] did not blame him for starting the war in 1914...He disagreed with my view that Russia and France were chiefly responsible. He held that the villains of 1914 were the international Jews and Free Masons, who, he alleged, desired to destroy national states and the Christian religion."

    Sounds like a real statesman, doesn’t he? Get caught trying to kill and rob your neighbors? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Destroy your own country? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Get a blackhead or pimple overnight? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. It must have been a great surprise when St-Adolf followed suit and used the same excuse.

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars. Trying to exonerate losers, even with the most fanciful lies, is nothing more than spraying ‘Eau de Allemagne’ on the most foul dung.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Vendetta says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have a sidelight to shine on the German attitude to the outbreak of WW1.

    When staying with an elderly member of old (minor) German nobility who had been captured in 1914 in France and spent the war as a POW becoming roundly educated I heard him reprove a young German with the remark that the the German breach of Belgium's guaranteed neutrality was not something the British would have done! (The British had indeed been going soft though Gandhi no doubt observed enough in South Africa to be less than wholly surprised by the Amritsar Massacre. Come to think of it.... Black and Tans.... Mau Mau emergency. Well, perhaps they didn't breach treaties... and after all they had an existing empire to run).

    Better at risk management and the diplomatic game. The American Revolutionary War was the last time the British ever screwed up like the Germans did in 1914.

    They managed to get France, Spain, and the Netherlands all fighting them at the same time as the Americans rebelled, with Russia and Austria maintaining a neutrality favorable to their enemies.

    The British, to their credit, actually learned from this disaster and never repeated it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Incitatus says:
    @Peter
    Just a note of clarification. "Germany began WWI" after an allied terrorist from Serbia murdered the next king (kaiser) of Austria and his wife. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Russia mobilized troops and called on France to mobilize and France and Germany declared war on each other the same day. Germany only attacked France after both France and Great Britain had declared war on her in the west and Russian troops were mobilized for fighting in the east.

    Same in WW II. Germany attacked France after France and England had declared war on her and were moving troops up to the German border.

    Israel attacks it's neighbors constantly without kicking off a world war. The USA attacks countries all the time without kicking off a world war. Austria-Hungary's attack on tiny Serbia had nothing to do with France, England or the USA and would not have started a world war except that these countries wanted a war with Germany.

    Kaiser Wilhelm II oversaw Germany emerge as the leading technological, science and military power in the world. France, sought revenge for losing the ethnically German area Alsace-Lorraine to Germany 45 years earlier and Great Britain was looking to start yet another war because Germany had surpassed her.

    Between 1871 (Franco-Prussian war) and WW I, Germany was only involved in a few minor skirmishes. England was involved in wars all over the world, behaving the way the US does today. If anyone had and inferiority complex, it was the English, seeing themselves overtaken. They finally destroyed their own empire and the rest of Europe when a corrupt politician by the name of Winston Churchill was paid a large sum of money by various wealthy Jews in 1936 to attack Germany. This he did, while Hitler repeated offered England peace, even an alliance. And the whole time Hitler was offering peace, England's "most outstanding liar" was telling the world Hitler wanted to conquer England and take over the world.

    ““Germany began WWI” after an allied terrorist from Serbia murdered the next king (kaiser) of Austria and his wife. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Russia mobilized troops and called on France to mobilize and France and Germany declared war on each other the same day. Germany only attacked France after both France and Great Britain had declared war on her in the west and Russian troops were mobilized for fighting in the east.”

    Too much Sauerkraut last night? This is getting tedious.

    [MORE]

    • 28 Jun 1914 – Slav nationalist Gavrilo Princip kills Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 05 Jul 1914 – Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 – Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 – Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 – Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 – Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 – Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 – Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 – Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;
    • 16 Aug 1914 – Germany captures Liège;
    • 25 Aug 1914 – Germany sacks Leuvan, burns the famous medieval library, destroys 2,000 civilian dwellings, expels it’s entire population (10,000);
    • 23 Aug 1914 – German troops reach the French border town of Mauberge;

    The first declarations of war are issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions are launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium.

    “Same in WW II. Germany attacked France after France and England had declared war on her and were moving troops up to the German border.”

    Poor innocent Nazi Germany. No need to mention the Dollfuß assassination, illegal remilitarization of the Rhineland, illegal rearmament, Condor Legion, Anschluß, digestion of Sudentenland and then the theft of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Nor the invasion of Poland. We get it. War was all the fault of evil France and England. Poor innocent Adolf.

    “Kaiser Wilhelm II oversaw Germany emerge as the leading technological, science and military power in the world.”

    Then why, after declaring war and launching invasions, did übermensch Germany lose? Let me guess. You must agree with revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes, who visited Willie in 1926. Willie “was happy to know that I [Barnes] did not blame him for starting the war in 1914…He disagreed with my view that Russia and France were chiefly responsible. He held that the villains of 1914 were the international Jews and Free Masons, who, he alleged, desired to destroy national states and the Christian religion.”

    Sounds like a real statesman, doesn’t he? Get caught trying to kill and rob your neighbors? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Destroy your own country? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Get a blackhead or pimple overnight? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. It must have been a great surprise when St-Adolf followed suit and used the same excuse.

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars. Trying to exonerate losers, even with the most fanciful lies, is nothing more than spraying ‘Eau de Allemagne’ on the most foul dung.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars.
     
    I have no opinion on WW1, but as for WW2,

    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov,
    https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    So, not Germany exclusive.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Incitatus

    ““Germany began WWI” after an allied terrorist from Serbia murdered the next king (kaiser) of Austria and his wife. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Russia mobilized troops and called on France to mobilize and France and Germany declared war on each other the same day. Germany only attacked France after both France and Great Britain had declared war on her in the west and Russian troops were mobilized for fighting in the east.”
     
    Too much Sauerkraut last night? This is getting tedious.

    • 28 Jun 1914 - Slav nationalist Gavrilo Princip kills Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo;
    • 05 Jul 1914 - Germany assures Austria-Hungary of it’s support;
    • 23 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary gives Serbia an ultimatum;
    • 25 Jul 1914 - Serbia accepts most of the ultimatum but is rebuffed by Austria-Hungary;
    • 28 Jul 1914 - Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia;
    • 30 Jul 1914 - Russia mobilizes;
    • 31 Jul 1914 - Germany demands Russia demobilize;
    • 01 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on Russia;
    • 02 Aug 1914 - Germany invades Luxembourg and besieges Longwy “the gate to Paris;”
    • 03 Aug 1914 - Germany declares war on France; France declares war on Germany;
    • 04 Aug 1914 - Germany invades neutral Belgium; UK declares war on Germany;
    • 16 Aug 1914 - Germany captures Liège;
    • 25 Aug 1914 - Germany sacks Leuvan, burns the famous medieval library, destroys 2,000 civilian dwellings, expels it’s entire population (10,000);
    • 23 Aug 1914 - German troops reach the French border town of Mauberge;

    The first declarations of war are issued by Austria-Hungary and Germany. The first invasions are launched by Germany (it’s General Staff recommended it as early as 1912). No one forced Germany to declare war and invade; no one forced Germany to rape Belgium.

    “Same in WW II. Germany attacked France after France and England had declared war on her and were moving troops up to the German border.”
     
    Poor innocent Nazi Germany. No need to mention the Dollfuß assassination, illegal remilitarization of the Rhineland, illegal rearmament, Condor Legion, Anschluß, digestion of Sudentenland and then the theft of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Nor the invasion of Poland. We get it. War was all the fault of evil France and England. Poor innocent Adolf.

    “Kaiser Wilhelm II oversaw Germany emerge as the leading technological, science and military power in the world.”
     
    Then why, after declaring war and launching invasions, did übermensch Germany lose? Let me guess. You must agree with revisionist Harry Elmer Barnes, who visited Willie in 1926. Willie "was happy to know that I [Barnes] did not blame him for starting the war in 1914...He disagreed with my view that Russia and France were chiefly responsible. He held that the villains of 1914 were the international Jews and Free Masons, who, he alleged, desired to destroy national states and the Christian religion."

    Sounds like a real statesman, doesn’t he? Get caught trying to kill and rob your neighbors? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Destroy your own country? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. Get a blackhead or pimple overnight? Blame the Jews and Freemasons. It must have been a great surprise when St-Adolf followed suit and used the same excuse.

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars. Trying to exonerate losers, even with the most fanciful lies, is nothing more than spraying ‘Eau de Allemagne’ on the most foul dung.

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars.

    I have no opinion on WW1, but as for WW2,

    The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov,

    https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    So, not Germany exclusive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {So, not Germany exclusive.}

    WW2 revisionists and Nazi apologists keep bringing up the discredited thesis of a GRU traitor, who is not a historian and who clearly is a self-loathing Russian with an ax to grind.

    The amateur's hallucination has been debunked by many historians and experts.
    Example: Col David M. Glantz, an American military historian with no ax to grind.

    [Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)]
    https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892


    So, Yes, Nazi Germany exclusively.
    , @RobinG
    US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals
    The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

    Fritzsche describes how he received instructions on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941: “[Foreign Minister Joachim von] Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. The claim that this was a preventative war was later repeated by the newspapers which received their instructions from me during the usual daily parole of the Reich Press Chief. I, myself, have also given this presentation of the cause of the war in my regular broadcasts.”

    Thus, the presentation of an illegal invasion of a foreign country as a “preventative” or pre-emptive war did not originate with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
     
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html
    , @Incitatus
    Possibly the most incriminating document at Nüremberg was the Hösbach Memorandum. Adjutant Friedrich Hoßbach recorded Hitler’s meeting with his service chiefs 5 Nov 1937. It clearly outlines plans for expansion by “force:”

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space...”

    “The German racial community... constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples.”

    “Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space.”

    “The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space. “

    “Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk...there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”


    Like von Moltke in 1912, Hitler wanted aggressive war in 1937. Nothing else would do. The memo hung many at Nüremberg. Decide for yourself:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. MarkinLA says:
    @Avery
    {My very broad guess is that the mentioned two sites could achieve at best only about 40-50% shoot-down rate.}

    Hi Kiza:

    Your 40%-50% success rate is quite generous.
    All US tests of intercepting ICBMs have been failures.
    And the tests were phony, because the interceptor was given the exact trajectory and other info of the target.

    One operational missile defense system, the misnomed Iron Dome, which operates in somewhat realistic war conditions has a success rate of 5%, according to physicist Theodore Postol, a professor of science technology and national security policy at MIT, who did a very detailed analysis. And what Iron Dome defends against is primitive, homemade Hamas missiles. Even then, it barely hits 5% of the missiles.

    There is no way NATO missile defense can intercept anywhere near 40%-50% of Russian nuke warheads. The newest ones release dozens of decoys, and the real one has a random trajectory at the terminal stage.

    The Neocon psychopaths who think a nuke war with Russia can be won are either insane, or know it can't, but are warmongering to feed the insatiable MIC. The problem is, with all these offensive missile "defense" systems in place, some nut someday might think of using it against Russia....and then it's lights out for everybody.

    Reagan’s Star Wars had some pie-in-the-sky ideas like the X-ray laser fed by a nuclear blast but it did have one interesting and possibly useful one – a space based rail gun. The gun also had an intelligent projectile to make in-flight corrections. However, the projectile was supposed to withstand 100,000 gs of acceleration so something moving that fast was unlikely to need much correction.

    I don’t know it there were any launches.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Avery says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars.
     
    I have no opinion on WW1, but as for WW2,

    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov,
    https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    So, not Germany exclusive.

    {So, not Germany exclusive.}

    WW2 revisionists and Nazi apologists keep bringing up the discredited thesis of a GRU traitor, who is not a historian and who clearly is a self-loathing Russian with an ax to grind.

    The amateur’s hallucination has been debunked by many historians and experts.
    Example: Col David M. Glantz, an American military historian with no ax to grind.

    [Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)]

    https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

    So, Yes, Nazi Germany exclusively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attonn
    Viktor "Suvorov" is not a self-loathing Russian, but a Russia-hating Ukrainian clown. Real name - Rezun. Appropriated the last name of the most prominent Russian military commander for marketing purposes, I guess (if I had a last name Rezun, I'd also look for alternatives). Recently Rezun advocated Ukraine developing dirty bomb in order to scare Russia. A lunatic, if you ask me. London has a lot of this scum floating around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Joke:
    Переубедить Вас мне очевидно не удастся, так что перехожу сразу к оскорблениям.
    Actually, my regards.
    Հարգանքներս

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    My Russian is little rusty, товарисч.
    Say the joke in English: maybe I'll get it.

    btw: old Armenian saying, "Truth shall set you free".

    And instead of 'joking', point out to what is untrue in my post:

    - Viktor Suvorov aka Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun was a GRU officer.
    - While a citizen of USSR, he spied for the Brits and later defected to England; when you spy for a foreign country, you are a traitor.
    - He is not a historian: he is an amateur writer.
    - When you are working for the enemies of your ethnos, you (meaning Rezun) are by definition self-loathing.

    Kind regards.
    Have a nice day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Avery says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Joke:
    Переубедить Вас мне очевидно не удастся, так что перехожу сразу к оскорблениям.
    Actually, my regards.
    Հարգանքներս

    My Russian is little rusty, товарисч.
    Say the joke in English: maybe I’ll get it.

    btw: old Armenian saying, “Truth shall set you free”.

    And instead of ‘joking’, point out to what is untrue in my post:

    - Viktor Suvorov aka Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun was a GRU officer.
    - While a citizen of USSR, he spied for the Brits and later defected to England; when you spy for a foreign country, you are a traitor.
    - He is not a historian: he is an amateur writer.
    - When you are working for the enemies of your ethnos, you (meaning Rezun) are by definition self-loathing.

    Kind regards.
    Have a nice day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Translation of the joke:
    Since it is evident that I will not be able to dissuade you,
    I am going straight to insults.


    Evidently, I did not go there.
    Have a nice day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Ace says:
    @Verymuchalive
    There are many reasons not to vote for Hilary Clinton. We know what they are, we don't need a drunken, drug-addled Mexican telling us.
    If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that " Washington " did not push the South into Civil War. Germany did not start World War I. I could continue, but won't.

    Helpful hint: it’s quite acceptable to take someone to task over facts or logic without resorting to invective that makes you look like a small man.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha, Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Avery
    My Russian is little rusty, товарисч.
    Say the joke in English: maybe I'll get it.

    btw: old Armenian saying, "Truth shall set you free".

    And instead of 'joking', point out to what is untrue in my post:

    - Viktor Suvorov aka Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun was a GRU officer.
    - While a citizen of USSR, he spied for the Brits and later defected to England; when you spy for a foreign country, you are a traitor.
    - He is not a historian: he is an amateur writer.
    - When you are working for the enemies of your ethnos, you (meaning Rezun) are by definition self-loathing.

    Kind regards.
    Have a nice day.

    Translation of the joke:
    Since it is evident that I will not be able to dissuade you,
    I am going straight to insults.

    Evidently, I did not go there.
    Have a nice day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. attonn says:
    @Avery
    {So, not Germany exclusive.}

    WW2 revisionists and Nazi apologists keep bringing up the discredited thesis of a GRU traitor, who is not a historian and who clearly is a self-loathing Russian with an ax to grind.

    The amateur's hallucination has been debunked by many historians and experts.
    Example: Col David M. Glantz, an American military historian with no ax to grind.

    [Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Modern War Studies)]
    https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892


    So, Yes, Nazi Germany exclusively.

    Viktor “Suvorov” is not a self-loathing Russian, but a Russia-hating Ukrainian clown. Real name – Rezun. Appropriated the last name of the most prominent Russian military commander for marketing purposes, I guess (if I had a last name Rezun, I’d also look for alternatives). Recently Rezun advocated Ukraine developing dirty bomb in order to scare Russia. A lunatic, if you ask me. London has a lot of this scum floating around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Ace says:
    @Jason Liu
    What cause do you think would lead America into war with Russia, though? Public opinions sounds very much against any future interventionism or "humanitarian expeditions".

    The only reason I can think of is an America that's threatened by Russia's expanding nationalist and authoritarian ideologies, but even then I don't think the average person has the stomach for war.

    So if Norwegians love their country they are a threat to world peace?

    How does nationalism = lebensraum?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. RobinG says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars.
     
    I have no opinion on WW1, but as for WW2,

    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov,
    https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    So, not Germany exclusive.

    US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals
    The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

    Fritzsche describes how he received instructions on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941: “[Foreign Minister Joachim von] Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. The claim that this was a preventative war was later repeated by the newspapers which received their instructions from me during the usual daily parole of the Reich Press Chief. I, myself, have also given this presentation of the cause of the war in my regular broadcasts.”

    Thus, the presentation of an illegal invasion of a foreign country as a “preventative” or pre-emptive war did not originate with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear RobinG:
    You have provided a reference to the material,
    Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

    Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?

    Your friendly, I.f.f.U.
    , @Incitatus

    “US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals”
     
    Fritzsche was acquitted. Julius Streicher, race baiter and Der Stürmer propagandist - a man considered repulsive even by his loathsome fellow defendants -swung.

    Brits also rendered justice. Irish-British Fascist and Nazi propagandist William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw), was captured in northern Germany at the end of the war, tried and hung for high treason 3 Jan 1946. If I recall correctly, Rebecca West wrote an account (she also wrote of Fritzsche and Nüremberg).

    If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!
    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear RobinG:

    Duplicate from other thread:

    I had a colleague back in USSR, senior than me, who in approx. 1960 was allowed to visit USA on scientific (STEM) business. He managed to visit Hoover Institute at Stanford University, and was extremely lucky to meet there in person A. F. Kerensky (1881-1970): the last Prime-Minister of Russia before Bolshevik coup, October of 1917.
    *
    Kerensky told to my astonished colleague: “You in Russia are so lucky, that Trotsky did not come to power. In comparison with Stalin, he would do much more harm to Russian people.”
    *
    Disclaimer: I, I.f.f.U., consider Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin
    as bunch of greatest scoundrels and tyrants in history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @RobinG
    US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals
    The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

    Fritzsche describes how he received instructions on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941: “[Foreign Minister Joachim von] Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. The claim that this was a preventative war was later repeated by the newspapers which received their instructions from me during the usual daily parole of the Reich Press Chief. I, myself, have also given this presentation of the cause of the war in my regular broadcasts.”

    Thus, the presentation of an illegal invasion of a foreign country as a “preventative” or pre-emptive war did not originate with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
     
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html

    Dear RobinG:
    You have provided a reference to the material,
    Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

    Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?

    Your friendly, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?}

    You don't have to be a member of the Communist Party of USSR to read the Library of (US) Congress record of the Nuremberg tribunal.

    Since you are an immigrant from former USSR, like me, I went the extra mile and found the source of where ICFI copied the relevant passage from.
    Below is the link of the PDF of the minutes of Fritzsche testimony and affidavit.

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Nazi_Vol-VI.pdf

    Kindly go to page 189, paragraph 33: there you will see: {Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. }

    Kind regards.

    , @RobinG
    LOL. The actual reference was the Nuremberg testimony of Hans Fritzsche, head of the news section of the Press Division of the [Nazi] Propaganda Ministry.
    Look on p. 64
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-23-46.asp

    Thanks, Avery. I see you beat me to it. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Avery says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear RobinG:
    You have provided a reference to the material,
    Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

    Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?

    Your friendly, I.f.f.U.

    {Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?}

    You don’t have to be a member of the Communist Party of USSR to read the Library of (US) Congress record of the Nuremberg tribunal.

    Since you are an immigrant from former USSR, like me, I went the extra mile and found the source of where ICFI copied the relevant passage from.
    Below is the link of the PDF of the minutes of Fritzsche testimony and affidavit.

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Nazi_Vol-VI.pdf

    Kindly go to page 189, paragraph 33: there you will see: {Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. }

    Kind regards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. This is new russian anti-ship missile in attack. Everything you should know about modern russian weapon, my dear americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ha! You got nothing on Afghanistan!

    Landlocked - baby! It's the Mongolian strategy! That's how you deny the enemy some targets! Build all the anti-ship missiles you want - suckerzzz!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Talha says:
    @RussianAbstraction
    http://cs4.pikabu.ru/post_img/2014/10/18/8/1413631608_1912237361.gif
    This is new russian anti-ship missile in attack. Everything you should know about modern russian weapon, my dear americans.

    Ha! You got nothing on Afghanistan!

    Landlocked – baby! It’s the Mongolian strategy! That’s how you deny the enemy some targets! Build all the anti-ship missiles you want – suckerzzz!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ms. Talha, where is the traditional ending of your posts, Peace?
    And what does

    suckerzzz!
     
    with triple "z" mean?
    , @RussianAbstraction
    Who is landlocked, baby? You should learn geography, baby.) What can you know about strategies? The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have the full nuclear triad. Russia is now developing and using new decision making principles and new phisical principles weapon. You will always be late, baby, and the reason of that is your agressive behaviour. You should work, not to attack other countries and read the article above three times, its brilliant.

    P.S. If you want understand who is a real sucker, come to Russia and say it face to face, bitch. I promise to you white mustache over your lips. So, live in peace or rest in peace, baby.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Ha! You got nothing on Afghanistan!

    Landlocked - baby! It's the Mongolian strategy! That's how you deny the enemy some targets! Build all the anti-ship missiles you want - suckerzzz!

    Ms. Talha, where is the traditional ending of your posts, Peace?
    And what does

    suckerzzz!

    with triple “z” mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    It's 'Mister'...and there is no 'Peace' when one discusses the TAMP!!! Bwahahahaha!

    Hide your kids, hide your wife...the TAMP is ON!

    TAMP = Total Afghan Military Prowess
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Divine Right
    "If you had been remotely sober, you might have realised that ” Washington ” did not push the South into Civil War"

    Of course not. It's not like Washington continued to maintain a military base housing their soldiers in someone else's country and refused to remove them when asked to or anything - the kind of thing that might actually start a war.

    Fort Sumter was federal property. According to the Constitution then in force, state authorities had no right to demand its surrender. It was not interfering with shipping in or out of Charleston, but Southern batteries had already fired on a supply ship bringing supplies to Sumter, causing it to turn back. There was thus no need for Beauregard to fire on the fort. Had he not done so, Sumter would still have been forced to surrender due to lack of supplies, and it is entirely possible there would have been a negotiated settlement with the 7 states that had seceded at that point. Several border states, including Virginia, might not have seceded.

    Such a result was not acceptable to secessionists, as the Confederacy would have been in a weak position regarding any future conflicts regarding western territories. They wanted all slave states to secede, so the issue was forced by firing on Sumter.

    The South started the Civil War. Deal with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    You are a fool if you think Lincoln wanted to negotiate. The Upper South states seceded because Lincoln asked them to furnish volunteers to help crush the secessionist states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @The Grate Deign
    Your warning is not out of place, Fred. However, the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them.

    Of course there is the danger of them getting used. Things do have a way of getting out of hand on occasion.

    But it does not strike me as particularly credible that the American war machine really wants a serious confrontation with a nuclear armed adversary. Because that would involve them, personally.

    The ABM installations in Romania and elsewhere in E. Europe are capable of being re-purposed to offensive capability through programming. This would put Moscow within 5 minutes of nuclear destruction. Thus, the mere placement of weapons constitutes their use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Talha says:
    @Anonymous
    Ms. Talha, where is the traditional ending of your posts, Peace?
    And what does

    suckerzzz!
     
    with triple "z" mean?

    It’s ‘Mister’…and there is no ‘Peace’ when one discusses the TAMP!!! Bwahahahaha!

    Hide your kids, hide your wife…the TAMP is ON!

    TAMP = Total Afghan Military Prowess

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Americans! please vote for Clinton, because after that, the history of the United States will end. We look forward to seeing many individual States in the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  230. @Neil Templeton
    Drunken and drug-addled? Perhaps, but his essay is not. Not even at probability of .001.

    Fred can often cause me cerebral irritation and muck up my blood pressure but in this case he is SPOT ON.
    Hilary and her vile, paper mache myrmidon may not intend war with Russia/China but their arrogant, cavalier, reckless, callous pursuit of regime change against Russia is FRAUGHT with danger. This is the point Fred makes: horrendous consequences have repeatedly followed the actions of stupid, arrogant leaders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @Talha
    Ha! You got nothing on Afghanistan!

    Landlocked - baby! It's the Mongolian strategy! That's how you deny the enemy some targets! Build all the anti-ship missiles you want - suckerzzz!

    Who is landlocked, baby? You should learn geography, baby.) What can you know about strategies? The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have the full nuclear triad. Russia is now developing and using new decision making principles and new phisical principles weapon. You will always be late, baby, and the reason of that is your agressive behaviour. You should work, not to attack other countries and read the article above three times, its brilliant.

    P.S. If you want understand who is a real sucker, come to Russia and say it face to face, bitch. I promise to you white mustache over your lips. So, live in peace or rest in peace, baby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Bro it was a joke - see comment 229, but it totally loses any meaning if I have to explain it. I got no beef with Russia - may her people live long and prosper.

    Peace.

    , @attonn
    Technically she is right - Afghanistan is most definitely a landlocked country. Not that it can spare it from destruction if a determined major military power chooses to make a point.

    I think you may have a problem with a sense of humor, though... although by my own experience, Russians in general, have a rather good one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. RobinG says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear RobinG:
    You have provided a reference to the material,
    Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

    Since I have never been a member of the Communist Party of USSR, my knowledge of their hierarchy is very limited.
    Fourth International: are they Trotskystes ?
    Or am I confusing them with somebody else ?

    Your friendly, I.f.f.U.

    LOL. The actual reference was the Nuremberg testimony of Hans Fritzsche, head of the news section of the Press Division of the [Nazi] Propaganda Ministry.
    Look on p. 64

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-23-46.asp

    Thanks, Avery. I see you beat me to it. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @5371
    Come now, moderator, you merely caught Aaron in the midst of his transition! Where's your LGBTQ-sensitivity?

    I’m glad you slipped off my Commenters to Skip list during a change of phones :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Incitatus

    “...how inept the British were in The Great War, how they should have lost, and how the world would have been a better place if the British had lost to Germany.”
     
    Douglas Haig is the sublime example. But each nation had rivals. Von Falkenhayn probably killed more of his own men than the enemy. It’s hard to think of a conflict with wider gulf between grunt valor and bilious staff indifference.

    I’ve yet to read Ferguson. My impression is of a celebrity historian (emphasis on the former). That may change when I have a chance to read him (then again it may not).

    The theory Brits would have been better off losing the war(s) is one of those entertaining ‘what ifs.’ Buchanan and others have made tidy fortunes on such titillation. Their work is hard to take seriously. What if they’re wrong? What if they’re right? We don’t have time machines to correct mistakes. I’m not hard to please. I’ll settle for well-written factual history based on current research - with dates (harder to find every year).

    The Balfour Declaration: gifts of other people’s land was almost a habit for the Brits, as it probably is for any empire. Cromwell in Ireland, the Ohio Company in Western Pennsylvania (Lawrence and George Washington no less), le Grand Dérangement in Acadie/Nova Scotia. There are too many examples. We inherited the mantle in Manifest Destiny. Been to an Indian Reservation lately?

    I’d be happy if US aid to Israel was used as restitution for lost land (the US defense industry would suffer most). I’d be happier if US aid (especially for weapons) ceased and Israel alone contributed to such a fund.

    George Washington was right to warn against ‘passionate attachments.” They’re bad for us and equally bad for Israel.

    I don’t seek to make or refute any particular argument but just to try out an improving quibble.

    The Balfour Declaration doesn’t really meet your description of giving away other people’s land I think. Palestine was I understand for most of 2000 years part of the Syrian province of successive empires with no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders who grew olives or grapes and some psstoralism on lands they certainly had no good Ottoman title to. Naturally savvy westerners like the finsnciers of early Zionism latched on to the small amounts of freehold title (even now only about 7 per cent of Israel from memory) and bought it up from absentee landlords thereby creating an economic magnet for Arabs as well as Jews so the effects of Zionism in 1917 could have looked quite benign. And creating a “national home” in a territory which was nobody’s nation but continuing its status as province in a new kind of empire (League of Nations Mandate) must have seemed like nothing more than, say, the British Raj assuring the Parsees that they would be protected on buildong their community structures in Bombay (my imagined example).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “...no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders...”

    I’m not sure I agree with your Balfour distinction. Brits of the Ohio Company no doubt considered the Delawares, Mingos, Chippewas, Ottawas, Miamis, Shawnees, and Wyandots “squatters.” Their fate was displacement (or worse). Same deal when Brits expelled their Neutral French Acadian subjects. I’m sure there’re more examples.

    Force is vital when dispossessing people, but denigrating those wronged certainly helps the conqueror salve his conscious.
    , @Incitatus
    Having more time (it’s been that kind of day), let me clarify my first reply.

    Defaming the victim can certainly assuage victor’s guilt, but why bother? It doesn’t change facts. The victor remains victor (albeit he may sleep a little better). Did the Iroquois consider their victims (Eries, Tobaccos, Neutrals, Hurons, Illinois, etc) ‘squatters’ after exterminating/expelling them? Did Jews consider Canaanites squatters? Did Romans consider Jews squatters? Brits, Hashemites, Ottomans? Does it matter?

    I was trying to remember Simon Wiesenthal’s recipe for forgiveness in ‘The Sunflower.’ I think it had something to do with accepting nothing less than a clear admission of the crime, as well as an apology. I recall it fondly, if not exactly. It’s been some time since I read the book.

    Most Americans are unaware of Manifest Destiny casualties and have no guilt to assuage. I wish they did. You can make your own decisions on Israel/Palestine. I don’t envy you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    If push Russia out of it climb tanks. Therefore, the war with Russia for the United States will cost you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  236. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Отличный текст!
    I knew that there are normal and intelligent people in the United States ))

    But who will listen to these people?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  237. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Excuse me, but every war he mentions turned out exactly as the planners wanted. They funded all the parties he mentions, and they wanted order out of chaos. For anyone who doesn’t know what I am referring to look up the term Hegelian Dialectic. The purpose of war is not for A to beat B. The purpose for the banksters is to get to C, and therefore, A and B can go to hell, they don’t care. Viet Nam was a huge success… the ancient indigenous people were replaced by a machine. That is why the CIA hijacked 1.1 million people in the 1950′s to prepare for the war that would destroy the region. See colonel Fletcher Prouty on that.

    It is nice and cozy to blame Hitler or Hillary, but both are funded by same banksters. Hitler was grandson of Soloman Rothschild. Bill Clinton was son of Winthrop Rockefeller. So the article is basically clueless. The “World Order” wants war to create chaos. IF they can create chaos, they win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  238. Talha says:
    @RussianAbstraction
    Who is landlocked, baby? You should learn geography, baby.) What can you know about strategies? The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have the full nuclear triad. Russia is now developing and using new decision making principles and new phisical principles weapon. You will always be late, baby, and the reason of that is your agressive behaviour. You should work, not to attack other countries and read the article above three times, its brilliant.

    P.S. If you want understand who is a real sucker, come to Russia and say it face to face, bitch. I promise to you white mustache over your lips. So, live in peace or rest in peace, baby.

    Bro it was a joke – see comment 229, but it totally loses any meaning if I have to explain it. I got no beef with Russia – may her people live long and prosper.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Incitatus says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    Germany largely started and certainly lost both wars.
     
    I have no opinion on WW1, but as for WW2,

    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov,
    https://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    So, not Germany exclusive.

    Possibly the most incriminating document at Nüremberg was the Hösbach Memorandum. Adjutant Friedrich Hoßbach recorded Hitler’s meeting with his service chiefs 5 Nov 1937. It clearly outlines plans for expansion by “force:”

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space…”

    “The German racial community… constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples.”

    “Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space.”

    “The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space. “

    “Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk…there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”

    Like von Moltke in 1912, Hitler wanted aggressive war in 1937. Nothing else would do. The memo hung many at Nüremberg. Decide for yourself:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    To:Avrey,
    To: RobinG.
    Dear gentlemen:
    I strongly suspect that a confusion of subject of the discussion has happened.
    I was talking about World War 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II (1939-1945).
    You are talking about the start of what in Soviet Union was called “Great Patriotic War”,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term) (1941-1945)
    The citation you have provided is about the start of 1941-45 War, and in this sense it is not pertinent to the start of WW2 properly, 1939.
    Your I.f.f.U.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Fascinating detail that I should have been aware of. Thanks. My reaction is that A J P Taylor was right in saying that the immediate reason for the conference was simply to get conservative support for more spending on armaments. No doubt Hitler was sounding them out too on his long held views such as the need to grab Lebensraum and also on their attitudes to France and Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Incitatus says:
    @RobinG
    US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals
    The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

    Fritzsche describes how he received instructions on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941: “[Foreign Minister Joachim von] Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. The claim that this was a preventative war was later repeated by the newspapers which received their instructions from me during the usual daily parole of the Reich Press Chief. I, myself, have also given this presentation of the cause of the war in my regular broadcasts.”

    Thus, the presentation of an illegal invasion of a foreign country as a “preventative” or pre-emptive war did not originate with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
     
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html

    “US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals”

    Fritzsche was acquitted. Julius Streicher, race baiter and Der Stürmer propagandist – a man considered repulsive even by his loathsome fellow defendants -swung.

    Brits also rendered justice. Irish-British Fascist and Nazi propagandist William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw), was captured in northern Germany at the end of the war, tried and hung for high treason 3 Jan 1946. If I recall correctly, Rebecca West wrote an account (she also wrote of Fritzsche and Nüremberg).

    If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!}

    Don't forget the poodle Blair.

    And Lord Prescott, former deputy prime minister to Tony Blair, has admitted, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. How much more is needed to jail the war criminals?

    Milošević was jailed and arranged to "die" in jail on trumped up war crimes charges. The real war criminals are walking free and enjoying life as "distinguished" (sic) "statesmen" (sic).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't seek to make or refute any particular argument but just to try out an improving quibble.

    The Balfour Declaration doesn't really meet your description of giving away other people's land I think. Palestine was I understand for most of 2000 years part of the Syrian province of successive empires with no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders who grew olives or grapes and some psstoralism on lands they certainly had no good Ottoman title to. Naturally savvy westerners like the finsnciers of early Zionism latched on to the small amounts of freehold title (even now only about 7 per cent of Israel from memory) and bought it up from absentee landlords thereby creating an economic magnet for Arabs as well as Jews so the effects of Zionism in 1917 could have looked quite benign. And creating a "national home" in a territory which was nobody's nation but continuing its status as province in a new kind of empire (League of Nations Mandate) must have seemed like nothing more than, say, the British Raj assuring the Parsees that they would be protected on buildong their community structures in Bombay (my imagined example).

    “…no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders…”

    I’m not sure I agree with your Balfour distinction. Brits of the Ohio Company no doubt considered the Delawares, Mingos, Chippewas, Ottawas, Miamis, Shawnees, and Wyandots “squatters.” Their fate was displacement (or worse). Same deal when Brits expelled their Neutral French Acadian subjects. I’m sure there’re more examples.

    Force is vital when dispossessing people, but denigrating those wronged certainly helps the conqueror salve his conscious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Avery says:
    @Incitatus

    “US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals”
     
    Fritzsche was acquitted. Julius Streicher, race baiter and Der Stürmer propagandist - a man considered repulsive even by his loathsome fellow defendants -swung.

    Brits also rendered justice. Irish-British Fascist and Nazi propagandist William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw), was captured in northern Germany at the end of the war, tried and hung for high treason 3 Jan 1946. If I recall correctly, Rebecca West wrote an account (she also wrote of Fritzsche and Nüremberg).

    If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!

    {If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!}

    Don’t forget the poodle Blair.

    And Lord Prescott, former deputy prime minister to Tony Blair, has admitted, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. How much more is needed to jail the war criminals?

    Milošević was jailed and arranged to “die” in jail on trumped up war crimes charges. The real war criminals are walking free and enjoying life as “distinguished” (sic) “statesmen” (sic).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Blair remains amazingly unrepentant for criminal complicity embarrassingly obvious since the Downing Street Memo surfaced in 2006. Ditto Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. As main war advocates the latter deserve a higher place on the indictment, if only for the fact that, despite many documented warnings, they were willfully negligent 9/11/01.

    Apologies to Robespierre, but there’re also others for the list: ‘expert’ academic advice, phony intelligence, bogus admin PR, corrupt media propaganda, failure to secure occupation, torture, etc. With what’s now in the public domain it should be more than a “slam dunk.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. @Incitatus
    Possibly the most incriminating document at Nüremberg was the Hösbach Memorandum. Adjutant Friedrich Hoßbach recorded Hitler’s meeting with his service chiefs 5 Nov 1937. It clearly outlines plans for expansion by “force:”

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space...”

    “The German racial community... constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples.”

    “Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space.”

    “The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space. “

    “Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk...there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”


    Like von Moltke in 1912, Hitler wanted aggressive war in 1937. Nothing else would do. The memo hung many at Nüremberg. Decide for yourself:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    To:Avrey,
    To: RobinG.
    Dear gentlemen:
    I strongly suspect that a confusion of subject of the discussion has happened.
    I was talking about World War 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II (1939-1945).
    You are talking about the start of what in Soviet Union was called “Great Patriotic War”,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term) (1941-1945)
    The citation you have provided is about the start of 1941-45 War, and in this sense it is not pertinent to the start of WW2 properly, 1939.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    To: Immigrant from former USSR.
    Dear Sir: see your comment #212.

    You referenced Viktor Suvorov's book, which claims Hitler invaded USSR, because Stalin was allegedly going to invade Nazi Germany.
    The chain of comments by several posters debunked Suvorov's hallucination.

    There is no confusion.
    You got cornered, and are now desperately trying to change the subject.
    Just like your desperate attempt to discredit the Fritzsche testimony because it was referenced in ICFI. The ridiculous foil to the Communist Party of USSR. Really weak.

    Kindly keep digging the hole you have already dug yourself into.
    Most entertaining.
    Kind regards.
    , @Incitatus
    Sir,

    The Hoßbach Memorandum recorded Hitler’s unmistakable plans for eastern expansion by force 5 Nov 1937. WW2 commenced 665 days later (1 Sep 1939).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @RobinG
    US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals
    The Nuremberg tribunal and the role of the media

    Fritzsche describes how he received instructions on the eve of the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941: “[Foreign Minister Joachim von] Ribbentrop informed us that the war against the Soviet Union would start that same day and asked the German press to present the war against the Soviet Union as a preventative war for the defense of the Fatherland, as a war which was forced upon us through the immediate danger of an attack of the Soviet Union against Germany. The claim that this was a preventative war was later repeated by the newspapers which received their instructions from me during the usual daily parole of the Reich Press Chief. I, myself, have also given this presentation of the cause of the war in my regular broadcasts.”

    Thus, the presentation of an illegal invasion of a foreign country as a “preventative” or pre-emptive war did not originate with Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
     
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/nure-a16.html

    Dear RobinG:

    Duplicate from other thread:

    I had a colleague back in USSR, senior than me, who in approx. 1960 was allowed to visit USA on scientific (STEM) business. He managed to visit Hoover Institute at Stanford University, and was extremely lucky to meet there in person A. F. Kerensky (1881-1970): the last Prime-Minister of Russia before Bolshevik coup, October of 1917.
    *
    Kerensky told to my astonished colleague: “You in Russia are so lucky, that Trotsky did not come to power. In comparison with Stalin, he would do much more harm to Russian people.”
    *
    Disclaimer: I, I.f.f.U., consider Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin
    as bunch of greatest scoundrels and tyrants in history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Avery says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    To:Avrey,
    To: RobinG.
    Dear gentlemen:
    I strongly suspect that a confusion of subject of the discussion has happened.
    I was talking about World War 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II (1939-1945).
    You are talking about the start of what in Soviet Union was called “Great Patriotic War”,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term) (1941-1945)
    The citation you have provided is about the start of 1941-45 War, and in this sense it is not pertinent to the start of WW2 properly, 1939.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    To: Immigrant from former USSR.
    Dear Sir: see your comment #212.

    You referenced Viktor Suvorov’s book, which claims Hitler invaded USSR, because Stalin was allegedly going to invade Nazi Germany.
    The chain of comments by several posters debunked Suvorov’s hallucination.

    There is no confusion.
    You got cornered, and are now desperately trying to change the subject.
    Just like your desperate attempt to discredit the Fritzsche testimony because it was referenced in ICFI. The ridiculous foil to the Communist Party of USSR. Really weak.

    Kindly keep digging the hole you have already dug yourself into.
    Most entertaining.
    Kind regards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. attonn says:
    @RussianAbstraction
    Who is landlocked, baby? You should learn geography, baby.) What can you know about strategies? The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have the full nuclear triad. Russia is now developing and using new decision making principles and new phisical principles weapon. You will always be late, baby, and the reason of that is your agressive behaviour. You should work, not to attack other countries and read the article above three times, its brilliant.

    P.S. If you want understand who is a real sucker, come to Russia and say it face to face, bitch. I promise to you white mustache over your lips. So, live in peace or rest in peace, baby.

    Technically she is right – Afghanistan is most definitely a landlocked country. Not that it can spare it from destruction if a determined major military power chooses to make a point.

    I think you may have a problem with a sense of humor, though… although by my own experience, Russians in general, have a rather good one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Marcus says:
    @anti_republocrat
    Fort Sumter was federal property. According to the Constitution then in force, state authorities had no right to demand its surrender. It was not interfering with shipping in or out of Charleston, but Southern batteries had already fired on a supply ship bringing supplies to Sumter, causing it to turn back. There was thus no need for Beauregard to fire on the fort. Had he not done so, Sumter would still have been forced to surrender due to lack of supplies, and it is entirely possible there would have been a negotiated settlement with the 7 states that had seceded at that point. Several border states, including Virginia, might not have seceded.

    Such a result was not acceptable to secessionists, as the Confederacy would have been in a weak position regarding any future conflicts regarding western territories. They wanted all slave states to secede, so the issue was forced by firing on Sumter.

    The South started the Civil War. Deal with it.

    You are a fool if you think Lincoln wanted to negotiate. The Upper South states seceded because Lincoln asked them to furnish volunteers to help crush the secessionist states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anti_republocrat
    Nowhere in my post did I indicate an opinion that Lincoln either did or did not want to negotiate. But it is clear he was very reluctant to call for volunteers or initiate war without a clear casus belli. What I said was that absent that, the crisis might have been resolved through negotiation. From your point of view, Lincoln might have been "forced" to negotiate since you believe he wanted war. Instead, South Carolina voluntarily gave him a casus belli that they didn't really have to.

    Incidentally, a similar situation arose with regard to Kentucky. Kentucky refused to secede but insisted on neutrality. Both sides waited things out for a time, but eventually the South got impatient and sent troops (Braxton Bragg?) into Kentucky, whereupon Kentucky asked the federal government for protection and firmly joined the union cause.

    Southern hubris is what started the war. First, by insisting on the expansion of slavery into the territories and even (through Dred Scott and "transit rights") into free states, then through secession and firing on Sumter. As I said before, deal with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Marcus says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome


    AK-47

     

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.


    A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits.

     

    More like weapons are designed by Western corporations, the technology stolen by espionage, and lower quality copies are designed to accomodate their more primitive manufacturing infrastructure.

    In this instance a copy of the German Stg44, and they were still using the same basic design for many decades.

    Wrong, the similarities are mostly superficial guns.connect.fi/gow/QA4.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. @Marcus
    You are a fool if you think Lincoln wanted to negotiate. The Upper South states seceded because Lincoln asked them to furnish volunteers to help crush the secessionist states.

    Nowhere in my post did I indicate an opinion that Lincoln either did or did not want to negotiate. But it is clear he was very reluctant to call for volunteers or initiate war without a clear casus belli. What I said was that absent that, the crisis might have been resolved through negotiation. From your point of view, Lincoln might have been “forced” to negotiate since you believe he wanted war. Instead, South Carolina voluntarily gave him a casus belli that they didn’t really have to.

    Incidentally, a similar situation arose with regard to Kentucky. Kentucky refused to secede but insisted on neutrality. Both sides waited things out for a time, but eventually the South got impatient and sent troops (Braxton Bragg?) into Kentucky, whereupon Kentucky asked the federal government for protection and firmly joined the union cause.

    Southern hubris is what started the war. First, by insisting on the expansion of slavery into the territories and even (through Dred Scott and “transit rights”) into free states, then through secession and firing on Sumter. As I said before, deal with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Sure the Confederates "took the bait," against the better advice of the usually bellicose Robert Toombs, Lincoln was a master manipulator

    The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen... you will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean. Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Marcus says:
    @anti_republocrat
    Nowhere in my post did I indicate an opinion that Lincoln either did or did not want to negotiate. But it is clear he was very reluctant to call for volunteers or initiate war without a clear casus belli. What I said was that absent that, the crisis might have been resolved through negotiation. From your point of view, Lincoln might have been "forced" to negotiate since you believe he wanted war. Instead, South Carolina voluntarily gave him a casus belli that they didn't really have to.

    Incidentally, a similar situation arose with regard to Kentucky. Kentucky refused to secede but insisted on neutrality. Both sides waited things out for a time, but eventually the South got impatient and sent troops (Braxton Bragg?) into Kentucky, whereupon Kentucky asked the federal government for protection and firmly joined the union cause.

    Southern hubris is what started the war. First, by insisting on the expansion of slavery into the territories and even (through Dred Scott and "transit rights") into free states, then through secession and firing on Sumter. As I said before, deal with it.

    Sure the Confederates “took the bait,” against the better advice of the usually bellicose Robert Toombs, Lincoln was a master manipulator

    The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen… you will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountains to ocean. Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Incitatus says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    To:Avrey,
    To: RobinG.
    Dear gentlemen:
    I strongly suspect that a confusion of subject of the discussion has happened.
    I was talking about World War 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II (1939-1945).
    You are talking about the start of what in Soviet Union was called “Great Patriotic War”,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term) (1941-1945)
    The citation you have provided is about the start of 1941-45 War, and in this sense it is not pertinent to the start of WW2 properly, 1939.
    Your I.f.f.U.

    Sir,

    The Hoßbach Memorandum recorded Hitler’s unmistakable plans for eastern expansion by force 5 Nov 1937. WW2 commenced 665 days later (1 Sep 1939).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I don't seek to make or refute any particular argument but just to try out an improving quibble.

    The Balfour Declaration doesn't really meet your description of giving away other people's land I think. Palestine was I understand for most of 2000 years part of the Syrian province of successive empires with no people who could be called a Palestinian people identifiable with the land apart from some squatters or (perhaps) leaseholders who grew olives or grapes and some psstoralism on lands they certainly had no good Ottoman title to. Naturally savvy westerners like the finsnciers of early Zionism latched on to the small amounts of freehold title (even now only about 7 per cent of Israel from memory) and bought it up from absentee landlords thereby creating an economic magnet for Arabs as well as Jews so the effects of Zionism in 1917 could have looked quite benign. And creating a "national home" in a territory which was nobody's nation but continuing its status as province in a new kind of empire (League of Nations Mandate) must have seemed like nothing more than, say, the British Raj assuring the Parsees that they would be protected on buildong their community structures in Bombay (my imagined example).

    Having more time (it’s been that kind of day), let me clarify my first reply.

    Defaming the victim can certainly assuage victor’s guilt, but why bother? It doesn’t change facts. The victor remains victor (albeit he may sleep a little better). Did the Iroquois consider their victims (Eries, Tobaccos, Neutrals, Hurons, Illinois, etc) ‘squatters’ after exterminating/expelling them? Did Jews consider Canaanites squatters? Did Romans consider Jews squatters? Brits, Hashemites, Ottomans? Does it matter?

    I was trying to remember Simon Wiesenthal’s recipe for forgiveness in ‘The Sunflower.’ I think it had something to do with accepting nothing less than a clear admission of the crime, as well as an apology. I recall it fondly, if not exactly. It’s been some time since I read the book.

    Most Americans are unaware of Manifest Destiny casualties and have no guilt to assuage. I wish they did. You can make your own decisions on Israel/Palestine. I don’t envy you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "Squatters" is a word which struggles to maintain purely pejorative connotations though, admittedly, I don't recall rich Australian pastoralists actually saying in my presence "g- grandfather was of course a Squatter". I don't think the old members of colonial Legislative Councils objected too much to being referred to as Squattocracy!

    Re Palestine I do think it helps the Israeli case a little if local Arabs rarely had any legal title to land as well as having no polity or even potential polity outside their status as south Syrian provincials. It meant that Jewish settlers could buy land or access to it with clear consciences and claim legitimate grievance if attacked just because the increasing Arab population had taken against them. None of that has much moral connection with what occurred from 1945 to 1949 as we would agree although Arab leaders hostility to Jews and Nazi connections hardly set the stage for peaceful solutions or compromise.

    I find the apology business a bit confusing and not just because there is so much humbug connected to lefty bleeding hearts in Australia trying to make Australia's tiny Aboriginal population serve all the soul cure purposes that America's black and Native American populations so amply provide for. Why wasn't PM Howard's expressing sorrow and regret at (from memory) the taking of a lot of half white children from their tribal Aboriginal mothers regarded as fulfilling the need for an "apology"? What on earth has the present generation of politicians got to apologise for concerning the somewhat racialist policies of Protectors of Aborigines in the 1920s and 30s? Yes, we have studied their diaries, letters and memoranda and we feel very guilty about the sentiments expressed by these people we'd never heard of till yesterday!??! Someone did wrong and we must feel the guilt and pay for it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Incitatus says:
    @Avery
    {If only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (et. al.) were indicted for Crimes Against Peace and Aggressive War!}

    Don't forget the poodle Blair.

    And Lord Prescott, former deputy prime minister to Tony Blair, has admitted, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal. How much more is needed to jail the war criminals?

    Milošević was jailed and arranged to "die" in jail on trumped up war crimes charges. The real war criminals are walking free and enjoying life as "distinguished" (sic) "statesmen" (sic).

    Blair remains amazingly unrepentant for criminal complicity embarrassingly obvious since the Downing Street Memo surfaced in 2006. Ditto Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. As main war advocates the latter deserve a higher place on the indictment, if only for the fact that, despite many documented warnings, they were willfully negligent 9/11/01.

    Apologies to Robespierre, but there’re also others for the list: ‘expert’ academic advice, phony intelligence, bogus admin PR, corrupt media propaganda, failure to secure occupation, torture, etc. With what’s now in the public domain it should be more than a “slam dunk.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Blair remains amazingly unrepentant for criminal complicity....}

    Psychopaths never feel guilt or remorse for murdering defenseless human beings. The only cure for psychopath mass murderers like Blair is an execution by firing squad or hanging by the neck until dead.

    The vile, filthy psychopath scum like Blair prancing around and lecturing about this or that is so disgusting, it turns my stomach.
    Sadly, nothing I or anybody else can do about it: the criminal mass murderers run the shop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. Avery says:
    @Incitatus
    Blair remains amazingly unrepentant for criminal complicity embarrassingly obvious since the Downing Street Memo surfaced in 2006. Ditto Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. As main war advocates the latter deserve a higher place on the indictment, if only for the fact that, despite many documented warnings, they were willfully negligent 9/11/01.

    Apologies to Robespierre, but there’re also others for the list: ‘expert’ academic advice, phony intelligence, bogus admin PR, corrupt media propaganda, failure to secure occupation, torture, etc. With what’s now in the public domain it should be more than a “slam dunk.”

    {Blair remains amazingly unrepentant for criminal complicity….}

    Psychopaths never feel guilt or remorse for murdering defenseless human beings. The only cure for psychopath mass murderers like Blair is an execution by firing squad or hanging by the neck until dead.

    The vile, filthy psychopath scum like Blair prancing around and lecturing about this or that is so disgusting, it turns my stomach.
    Sadly, nothing I or anybody else can do about it: the criminal mass murderers run the shop.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Blair’s after-crime pontification and profiteering is disagreeable, to say the least. So are the exculpatory memoirs of Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    Generally I don’t believe in capital punishment - something about Scalia’s gleeful advocacy makes me think it’s a dangerous, corrupting instrument of state. Forcing criminals to think (every day) about their crimes in a life sentence seems as effective and saves the jailer from depravity.

    Then again I agree with the punishment met out at Nüremberg, so you may have a point.

    Maybe there’s a middle ground. The Imperial Byzantine cure for rivals or pretenders - blinding and a life of monastic prayer and reflection?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. @Incitatus
    Having more time (it’s been that kind of day), let me clarify my first reply.

    Defaming the victim can certainly assuage victor’s guilt, but why bother? It doesn’t change facts. The victor remains victor (albeit he may sleep a little better). Did the Iroquois consider their victims (Eries, Tobaccos, Neutrals, Hurons, Illinois, etc) ‘squatters’ after exterminating/expelling them? Did Jews consider Canaanites squatters? Did Romans consider Jews squatters? Brits, Hashemites, Ottomans? Does it matter?

    I was trying to remember Simon Wiesenthal’s recipe for forgiveness in ‘The Sunflower.’ I think it had something to do with accepting nothing less than a clear admission of the crime, as well as an apology. I recall it fondly, if not exactly. It’s been some time since I read the book.

    Most Americans are unaware of Manifest Destiny casualties and have no guilt to assuage. I wish they did. You can make your own decisions on Israel/Palestine. I don’t envy you.

    “Squatters” is a word which struggles to maintain purely pejorative connotations though, admittedly, I don’t recall rich Australian pastoralists actually saying in my presence “g- grandfather was of course a Squatter”. I don’t think the old members of colonial Legislative Councils objected too much to being referred to as Squattocracy!

    Re Palestine I do think it helps the Israeli case a little if local Arabs rarely had any legal title to land as well as having no polity or even potential polity outside their status as south Syrian provincials. It meant that Jewish settlers could buy land or access to it with clear consciences and claim legitimate grievance if attacked just because the increasing Arab population had taken against them. None of that has much moral connection with what occurred from 1945 to 1949 as we would agree although Arab leaders hostility to Jews and Nazi connections hardly set the stage for peaceful solutions or compromise.

    I find the apology business a bit confusing and not just because there is so much humbug connected to lefty bleeding hearts in Australia trying to make Australia’s tiny Aboriginal population serve all the soul cure purposes that America’s black and Native American populations so amply provide for. Why wasn’t PM Howard’s expressing sorrow and regret at (from memory) the taking of a lot of half white children from their tribal Aboriginal mothers regarded as fulfilling the need for an “apology”? What on earth has the present generation of politicians got to apologise for concerning the somewhat racialist policies of Protectors of Aborigines in the 1920s and 30s? Yes, we have studied their diaries, letters and memoranda and we feel very guilty about the sentiments expressed by these people we’d never heard of till yesterday!??! Someone did wrong and we must feel the guilt and pay for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    ‘Squatters’ implies personal illegitimacy, a step in denigration that too often leads to deprivation of humanity and sometimes life itself. Of course legal title is important, but who determines the law? How much land is owned by the state, and how did it come by it? Legally? Is law retroactive, even when it destroys lifestyles that have existed for centuries? I have no answers.

    One of the strengths of the US Constitution is the absolute respect for private property. There are ways it’s undermined, of course. And it didn’t often apply to Manifest Destiny victims. The earliest colonialism often featured some form of barter - advisable when colonists are vastly outnumbered.

    The Dutch purchased Manhattan in 1626 for trade goods worth 60 guilders ($2,600-$16,000 today). Some call the price unfair, but that’s with the knowledge of the island’s current value - hardly a fair exercise. They also ignore the far more destructive aspect of the transaction - the introduction of trade goods, to which Native nations became addicted. Combined with disease, rum, brandy, and technology, the long-term fate of the indigenous population was sealed.

    What if America was never colonized and pre-industrial peoples still dominated the continent. Would they be better off? The noble savage? A moot point that can fill spare time, but unlikely to produce a better future.

    Shrill advocacy is often the domain of harpies that make it a career. They louder they screech, the more attention they get, especially in this age. There’s enough of them around on both sides of most issues, especially in our bipolar political system. I sometimes think it’s a result of the English adversarial legal system, but the thought brings little solace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. @Incitatus
    Possibly the most incriminating document at Nüremberg was the Hösbach Memorandum. Adjutant Friedrich Hoßbach recorded Hitler’s meeting with his service chiefs 5 Nov 1937. It clearly outlines plans for expansion by “force:”

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space...”

    “The German racial community... constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples.”

    “Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space.”

    “The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space. “

    “Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk...there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”


    Like von Moltke in 1912, Hitler wanted aggressive war in 1937. Nothing else would do. The memo hung many at Nüremberg. Decide for yourself:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    Fascinating detail that I should have been aware of. Thanks. My reaction is that A J P Taylor was right in saying that the immediate reason for the conference was simply to get conservative support for more spending on armaments. No doubt Hitler was sounding them out too on his long held views such as the need to grab Lebensraum and also on their attitudes to France and Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Hoßbach embarrasses the ‘no Lebensraum through force’ crowd. They usually claim it’s a forgery or obtained by torture. But they’re addicted to Nazi strudel, and nothing else will do.

    Adolf seemed obsessed with the struggle for survival. It weaves it’s way through so many boring pages of Mein Kampf, Table Talk, and other holy text. He believed force the determinate justification for life and brutal dominance a high aspiration. Unlike Athens, he wouldn’t hesitate to reduce Melos to ashes, kill it’s men and sell the women and children into slavery. In fact he did just that and worse, all with a lot of help from the Volk.

    In the end, like some bizarre Wagnerian opera, he turned his ire on his own people. Shooting himself like a squalid coward was the best thing he ever did (screw the Autobahn).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The Grate Deign
    Your warning is not out of place, Fred. However, the real intent is to justify buying armaments, not in actually using them.

    Of course there is the danger of them getting used. Things do have a way of getting out of hand on occasion.

    But it does not strike me as particularly credible that the American war machine really wants a serious confrontation with a nuclear armed adversary. Because t