Do you ever think…
…that we’ve reached the end of what there is to say about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
I realize that there’s always more, of course. Time doesn’t stand still. Things happen. Words come out of their mouths. New gaffes, new outrages, new lies, new accusations. New polls. New events in the world.
But in some essential way, although the subject of the personalities of these two people feels mined out, excavated, fully explored, the fact that these are the two choices facing America for the next four years still feels altogether new and altogether unbelievable, as well as altogether unacceptable.
Perhaps that’s the reason we continue to talk so much about it, and by “we” I mean everyone: newspapers, magazines, books, talk shows, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, all around the world. Sometimes it seems that there’s no other news to be had, although if one digs for it, the world still goes on in the same old way irrespective of the Big Two.
American presidential elections always get a lot of attention. But this year is unlike any I can ever remember before in the utter dominance of the story and the depth of perplexity, frustration, and depression most people feel.
I dunno, neo. This is about the only blog I read where the comments are worthwhile, and even here I feel like they’re going in circles. Add to that some of the sniping and the occasional War On Straw, and sometimes I feel like throwing up my hands in frustration. Still, this is the hand we’ve been dealt, even if it appears to be a yarborough. Keep on keepin’ on, all of us.
You and I were done with it months back, we just don’t realize it yet, and so the repetition goes on and on and on….
“Now when all the clowns that you have commissioned
Have died in battle or in vain
And you’re sick of all this repetition
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5Sg19_onE
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
Vomiting Dog vs Mired Sow
Pretty much the choice and not the echo.
Would you have felt better if this election were Biden vs Rubio?
The brilliant Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post has some incisive comments about the U.S. election well worth consideration:
“TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN DREAM”
Stopping the “fundamental transformation” of the U.S.
My opinion of Trump has shifted somewhat over the past year. At his point I consider him to be the man that stops the train before it goes over the cliff, or off the fallen bridge. I don’t care all that much what happens after. Once it is stopped, we can decide what to do next.
Very interesting piece by Miss Glick.
I was struck by her quote of Bret Stephens. This excerpt:
“The United States survives so long as at least one of its major parties is politically and intellectually healthy. I don’t think the Republican Party … survives with Donald Trump.”
So Mr. Stephens thinks the Democrats are “intellectually healthy”???
!!!
The Dems survive and increase largely through lying, pandering, crooked dealings, and vote fraud. (Think of that! We just found boxes full of uncounted Dem votes in somebody’s trunk!)
This does not speak to me of political health.
…
The “moderate” Republicans, a.k.a. RINOs, have absorbed the beliefs and attitudes of progressivism that underly their own intellectual ill health; this makes me think of Miss Rand’s discussions of the “sanction of the victim,” in the sense that, as David Horowitz puts it, “Republicans are too nice to fight back.” (Lots more to it than just that, of course.)
So it’s not as if I argue that the Heffalumps are intellectually healthy either.
Anyhow, I particularly liked Miss Glick’s matter-of-fact listing of some of the ways in which the Sith has “fundamentally transformed America.”
(Although, it’s not as though he had to break the ground himself. Late-19th-century Progressivism and German philosophy — especially Hegelianism — meet Political Gangsterism, itself not an unknown phenomenon in human history.)
It’s heartbreaking to see how many people are saying, “We survived Bush, and all Obama did was continue the Bush policies. We survived Obama, and we’re still here, and Hillary’s just more of the same, yawn.”
They’ve no idea what’s been lost.
Well, I think we can predict each candidate will continue to behave as they have behaved. More scandal, flip flops, etc. Je suis fatigue de la donald et hillary.
There is more to talk about, but it would have to be something that the rest of society ignores.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/if-the-clintons-are-using-trump-as-a-stalking-horse-then-it-is-to-smoke-out-insurgents/
It is convenient, in a sense, that the Alt Right, unlike the New World Order, is so transparent. You don’t need to resort to conspiracy theories to see what their top representatives are saying or thinking.
It’s an interesting take, although I’ve been saying that the GOP needed to become the White Party if it was going to survive. Otherwise, if it insists on trying to continue pretending to play ideological politics as the junior partner in the bi-factional ruling party, it will rapidly go the way of the Whigs in the new identity politics system.
-VoxDay
That wasn’t what my topic was about, but it does highlight an ancillary issue people here talked about, concerning how much white supremacy was part of the Alt Right coalition.
The Dems survive and increase largely through lying, pandering, crooked dealings, and vote fraud. (Think of that! We just found boxes full of uncounted Dem votes in somebody’s trunk!)
This does not speak to me of political health.
Which is why if the GOP E wants to succeed on the same level as the Demoncrats, along with Trum, they will need to be just as “healthy”. Some see this as growing up or increasing their power, I see that as pointless.
neo asks if “we’ve reached the end of what there is to say about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?”
Indubitably, yes. But of course Trump and Hillary are their supporter’s current champions and of those supporters much may yet be said and about the forces that have given rise to such a choice.
Though we may have seemed to have discussed that as well, there is one area that has not received much attention here as a causative factor. That is the effect that women as a group has had on voting patterns that have given rise to our current choice.
The obvious exception to that is Artflgdr who has long railed against feminism and long claimed it to be a causative factor. Personally, I have previously discounted what I perceived to be an obsessive and faulty premise upon his part, assigning it at least in part, to simple misogyny.
Today, I read an article by the Canadian social commentator David Solway that caused me to reconsider assumptions long held. Reconsidering the Female Franchise”
In his article, Solway links to this video by Janet Bloomfield aka Judgybitch
“3 Reasons #WhyWomenShouldNotVote (video)”
I strongly urge anyone willing to have their taken-for-granted-beliefs challenged by a logical, objective argument, to give it their full attention. Remarkable.
I’m certain that neo will wish to comment. At length I suspect.
In answer to your question, Neo – I’ve personally hit “peak Trump”. I can’t wait for this election to be over.
And in response to someone up above, Biden vs. Rubio sounds heavenly.
<Brian Swisher Says:
"…a yarborough."
Interesting reference from the game in which the power-defining concept is – Trump.
For God’s sake, geokstr, did you have to remind me that I can’t escape during a simple game of whist?
vanderleun:
My theory for some time has been that Queen Jane is Andy Warhol. The lyrics fit and Dylan dropped a huge clue in an interview: Queen Jane is a man.
Checking around the net it seems others have noticed.
Ymar:
According to a friend who follows voting pattern, the reason Texas has not gone blue is because the GOP has become the white people party.
There is nothing heavenly about Biden, in my opinion. I consider him an inveterate liar, just like HRC. I also consider him to be just as corrupt. His corruption is lower profile because he is neither as smart, nor as slick, as the Clinton team.
I actually worried at one point that the Dems would rush Biden into the breach, because it seems that he fools a lot of people when he flashes his fake teeth–likely as not at inappropriate times. Once Trump became the nominee, they relaxed.
Neo, I really can’t imagine what else there is to be said; but, we know that a lot more will be. The only thing I really want to hear is some official statements about HRC’s many ethical or (possible) health issues. On the other hand, I wish that Trump would say nothing about policy; because he either does not understand the concepts, or is just incapable of making back-to-back coherent statements on any issue.
For better or worse my hopes now rest with Trump. I am not sanguine that the U.S. could survive, in recognizable form, a Hillary regime that followed eight years of Obama. Her potential to make several SCOTUS appointments alone could change the landscape in ways that might never be repaired.
vanderleun, 2:55 pm —
“As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;”
— — — —
F Y I, key portions of that quote are Biblical . . .
KJV Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Oldflyer, 7:51 pm — “I am not sanguine that the U.S. could survive, in recognizable form, a Hillary regime that followed eight years of Obama. Her potential to make several SCOTUS appointments alone could change the landscape in ways that might never be repaired.”
Well, yeah, this is what I’ve been figuring since (in 2012) I pegged Election Day 2012 [not a typo] as the tipping point from which I did not see a return.
I maintain my interest because
-1- it’s my country (dammit), and
-2- I could be mistaken (if only).
[and -3- I’m a USA news/politics junkie.]
Line up and start the chorus of scorn and derision.
Some haven’t rolled over:
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/08/27/video-ad-air-swing-states-calls-trump-quit/
Because “we” all “know” Trump keeps his commitments.
Someone who kept his commitments:
http://weaponsman.com/?p=34540#comments
Yes, next question…
GB,
The fly in the ointment is not women, although women are a majority of the voters causing the problem. The problem consists of voters that do not understand the benefits of a republic, nor understand the inherent dangers of centralized power. They salute power to the people, but fail to see the ‘people’ are a mob. They fail to seize their sovereignty as individuals.
Julie near Chicago: Thanks and amen.
Oldflyer: you are correct. Anyone who thinks Biden would be better is ignorant of the man’s history. He is a fool, a coward and a bully.
I’m in chapter 2 of Yuval Levin’S The Fractured Republic. He takes things back to the beginning of the 20th century and talks about the changes since the 60s. It’s a good book, so I’m waiting to see what his suggestions are for fixing things. He talks about bothe left and right being nostalgic for the 50s and how this time will not return. He also talks about the extreme individualism that has arisen since DR. Spock, no-fault divorce, and the pill. So far, I haven’t found anything to disagree with. Maybe some ways out of our current mess will come no matter who the next president is. I just hope they can find a way to get out of Obama’s foreign policy messes. But the world will never be as we remember it.
Biden vs Rubio would have been a better election because Biden > Hillary and Rubio WAY> Trump.
With Rubio winning, of course.
I don’t know why vanderleun didn’t source his second quote. That’s from Kipling’s, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings,” one of the most prescient political/cultural poems ever written.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
The final verse (right after van’s quote):
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Yancey Ward::
Are you kidding me?
Much, much better, for two main reasons. The first is that I am convinced that Rubio would have won. The second is that I would have been fine with him winning.
parker,
But that’s the point that Bloomfield is making about women in the aggregate. That their overriding concern is the security of the nest, which leads them to dismiss the benefits of a Republic and liberty because self-determination cannot be divorced from its inherent risk.
It is the consequence of failure that the majority of women fear and so as a group they vote for ever more insurance from life’s vissitudes. They ignore the danger of centralized power because they want the government to act as a sugar daddy. Most fail to seize their soverignty because it requires reliance upon oneself for defense against external aggression.
Bloomfield points out that the voting patterns of women since gaining the voting franchise consistently point to these conclusions. I find her argument, that women’s biological ‘wiring’ leads to these actions, highly persuasive.
Geoffrey Britain:
I actually think that somewhere I’m on record as saying that I think female voters have pointed the country in a more liberal, leftward direction. I also believe I’m on record as saying (but I can’t find it now; it might have been in some comment or other) that the female vote was inevitable and correct to institute, and cannot and should not be rescinded, even if we don’t like that result (and I don’t like that result).
The exact same thing is true of allowing people without property to vote. I did find a post where I mentioned that in passing, here, although I think there were some other places where I discussed it at greater length. It is also a case where the vote for non-propertyholders was inevitable and correct to institute, and cannot and should not be rescinded.
The trend is towards universal suffrage, and giving women, non-propertyholders, and black people the vote is part and parcel of allowing more citizens to partake of full rights as citizens. At this point, all those trends have led the country leftward.
The very same thing (the leftward trend in voting, that is) is true of allowing 18-year-olds to vote. However, I think that was an error, and should be rescinded but will never be. I’ve written on that subject, too, but the only post I can find that deals with it is a shortish one, here. The difference between that and women, etc., is that there is a much better argument to be made that age is a real criterion for evaluating voting competence; the other categories are not.
Want things to change?
Stop paying taxes. If Hillary is elected, it proves that “laws are for the little people.” It’s time for the “little people” to take a stand, and that stand is STOP FEEDING THE BEAST. 5 people not paying taxes means those 5 are in trouble; 5,000,000 not paying taxes means the GOVERNMENT is in trouble. Things would have to change…and it would be a mostly bloodless revolution.
neo,
I agree with much of what you state. I find Bloomfield’s argument that 18 is justified by the draft to be persuasive.
My most immediate concern in where the majority of women’s votes are taking us is arguably, to eventual sovereign bankruptcy and an inability to defend ourselves. The historical trends Bloomfield quotes and the reasoned argument she makes that women (in the aggregate) will sacrifice needed expenditures for defense, in order to increase the”safety net” is a self-evident truth.
Huh. I thought I was the only one who thought lowering the voting age to 18 was a bad idea.
I don’t think the draft mitigates that, though I think that actual service should. E.g., make the normal minimum age 25, and then anyone who actually served 3+ years on active duty could get to vote when they finished their third year. I’d also consider police, fire, EMS, and any similar service qualifying as well.
Oh, as to the original post, it seems pretty true. Some bad news there: After the election, we’re going to have at least 4 more years of discussion about one of them.
I need a drink.
I’m still in maybe the horse will sing mode.
“Stopping the “fundamental transformation” of the U.S.”
Trump is a continuation of it. His supporters have more in common with SJWs in tactics and neocons in goals than they do with conservatives.
Brian Swisher Says:
“For God’s sake, geokstr, did you have to remind me that I can’t escape during a simple game of whist?”
Whist? Wha’ dat? I was speaking of the most intellectual of pasteboard contests, contract bridge (which probably explains why I’ve never been more than average at it.)
br “maybe the horse will sing” davis … 😀
Matt_SE: What goals do they have in common with neocons?
“Stopping the “fundamental transformation” of the U.S.”
“Trump is a continuation of it.” Matt_SE
There is a difference between the economic oppression of the oligarchs and the ideological oppression of the collective. Both are repressive, one demands obedience and that your toil be in their service, the other demands that and your mind and soul. Oligarchs are strictly concerned with the material, the collective demands your worship, you will have no other gods before it.
Thomas Doubting,
Agreed, teenagers do not magically become adults upon their 18th birthday. Nevertheless, “young men are required to register with the federal Selective Service when they turn 18, or within 30 days of that birthday. If military conscription is ever resumed again, these men, ages 18-25, will form the draft pool.” I cannot rationally disagree with Bloomfield’s assertion that, for society to require placing one’s life at risk without a say in when they might be required to do so is indefensible.
How can we not keep watching and discussing the impending train wreck that may well mean the end of our liberal democratic republic? … and with it, the end of Western civilization?
If Hillary is elected then it’s definitely over — not so much because of her unfathomable corruption and incompetence as because of what her election would reveal about either (a) the extent to which our countrymen have embraced “the dark side,” or (b) the extent to which the Democratic Party has corrupted the integrity of our election process.
(Yes, the 2012 election already signaled the death of America. But the 2014 midterms rekindled hope for the fate of our nation and the civilization that has given us every blessing the leftist dupes take for granted — and which they are hastening to destroy out of bigoted ignorance.)
Trump is awful, to be sure: unqualified by character, ideology, and experience. But Hillary Clinton is absolutely DISqualified on all counts. And there is one consideration that completely resolves the question of whether I can vote in good conscience for Trump. (And, strangely, I’ve yet to see this addressed by the pundits.)
If Hillary is elected, the entire Democratic machine — politicians, press, judiciary, etc. — will aid and abet her continuing destruction of liberal democracy in America. But if Trump is elected, we can be pretty damned sure that the leftists will suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law, of separation of powers, of checks and balances, of federalism, and of strictly limited executive authority.
Thus, electing Trump is probably our only chance to save America — unless, of course, he’s been a Trojan all along.
Geokstr:
I know – I was just kinda messing with you. 🙂 It’s been some time since I’ve played bridge, for lack of partners, but I’ve taught a number of my reenacting pards whist, which is essentially bridge without bidding. Perhaps we’ll get in a couple of rubbers next weekend. However, my earlier point still stands – a yarborough’s a yarborough, either in bridge or in whist.
Thomas Doubting Says:
Matt_SE: What goals do they have in common with neocons?
Large government, used for their own purposes. After all, who do you think is going to be enforcing all these new trade sanctions? Who do you think will be implementing Trump’s favored policy of single payer healthcare?
The alt-right are like neocons in their rejection of small government as an organizing principle. They don’t even pay lip service to it like the RINOs do.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“Stopping the “fundamental transformation” of the U.S.”
“Trump is a continuation of it.” Matt_SE
There is a difference between the economic oppression of the oligarchs and the ideological oppression of the collective. Both are repressive, one demands obedience and that your toil be in their service, the other demands that and your mind and soul. Oligarchs are strictly concerned with the material, the collective demands your worship, you will have no other gods before it.
The difference is theoretical only, like for example the difference between fascism and communism.
Both will be run by masterminds, and the claims either have on citizens’ hearts/minds/souls will be unheeded by the citizens.
Even Soviets knew the party line was bullshit.
Oops, formatting error. The second paragraph is my response, and everything else was a quote.
Brian Swisher Says:
“I was just kinda messing with you. :)”
I know. The messing was mutual. 🙂
I haven’t played since college, years before neo’s birth (those two events being otherwise totally unrelated), also due to lack of other players. If you don’t mind playing with total strangers, every medium size city and up has duplicate bridge clubs.
…a yarborough’s a yarborough, either in bridge or in whist.
Actually, though, your original comment is on point, a yarborough being a hand having no honor, which is what the Republican Party is playing with Trump as the nominee.
David swadel Says:
“…there is one consideration that completely resolves the question of whether I can vote in good conscience for Trump. (And, strangely, I’ve yet to see this addressed by the pundits.)
If Hillary is elected, the entire Democratic machine – politicians, press, judiciary, etc. – will aid and abet her continuing destruction of liberal democracy in America. But if Trump is elected, we can be pretty damned sure that the leftists will suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law, of separation of powers, of checks and balances, of federalism, and of strictly limited executive authority.
You haven’t been coming here then.
The certified awfulness of HRC over the (possibly less) awfulness of Trump and, if Donald wins, the likelihood the media, Congress and the courts will suddenly start doing their actual jobs has been covered by neo and debated here ad nauseum. It’s the main reason most of us will put heavy duty woodworking clamps over our noses to vote for the blowhard, at least if we live in a state that’s in play.
If you live in CA, NY or other deep blue state, or even a deep red one, what’s the point? Vote your conscience.
If Trump manages to somehow win 270 electoral votes, I can see him doing it the lowest plurality of the citizen vote ever, because there may be substantial defections to the Libertarians or write-in votes for other primary candidates in the many states where it doesn’t matter.
Matt_SE:
Neocons don’t believe in large government. I wouldn’t doubt that some people who are considered neocons do believe in it, but it’s not part of the definition, and it’s certainly not something I believe in, nor do most as far as I know.
Check out my posts on the subject. People use the word to mean whatever they want it to mean, but that’s not what it means.
Matt_SE @ 12:09,
History repeatedly and consistently demonstrates that the difference between authoritarian oligarchies and totalitarian collectives is far from “theoretical” and, you know it.
@GB,
No, I don’t “know it,” because I don’t believe it’s true. The USSR was as close to collectivism as any country has ever come, and it was an oligarchy just like fascist countries.
Communists do not actually believe all people are equal, or they just don’t care.
What? You wanna’ discuss GW Bush and his Medicare Part D…Dept. of Homeland Security…TARP…Trans-Texas Corridor…and on and on?
Totalitarians – communist, fascist, national populist, they all just don’t care. Pretty hard and harsh concept for some to grasp. A distinction without a difference.
Check the brand on the bottom of the boot that is stomping on your face forever.
@ neo-neocon:
“During the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use “neoconservative” in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists — whom he derided as “socialists for Nixon” — who had become more conservative.[12] These people tended to remain endorsers of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration with respect to foreign policy, especially by their endorsement of the Vietnam War and opposition to the USSR. They still endorsed the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Evolution_of_opinions
Of course, the article continues in-depth.
This excerpt agrees with my amateur definition:
Domestic policy: people who were either always supporters of the welfare state (often former Democrats) or conservatives who gave up on the idea of limited government after decades of failure to scale it back at all.
Their view is that the best outcome possible is to bend Big Government to their purposes because eliminating it is impossible or impractical.
This domestic side of the definition is much less well-known.
Foreign policy: Interventionist, and somewhat idealist in the sense that they believe our principles can be exported.
This part of the ideology is much better known, to the point that many people think it is the only defining trait.
I had always assumed you were aware of this and it was why you chose NEO-neocon.
The kinder gentler oligarchs = national populists.
snopercod:
George W. Bush was not a neocon. He was a conservative for his entire life. The single neoconnish endeavor he undertook was the rebuilding of Iraq postwar, and even in that regard he was insufficiently neoconnish and insufficiently devoted to the task initially. His big government tendencies were a completely separate thing from any neocon ideas of his. I have written many posts on what the word “neocon” means. Please read them. Big government is not part of it.
snopercod:
Correction to my comment above—Bush was a Republican his entire life, that is. He was not a conservative nor a neocon.
Matt_SE and snopercod:
Yes, I’m familiar with the history of the term “neocon” and the multiple and varied (VERY varied) definitions of the term. It has often meant whatever the writer has wanted it to mean, and the definition has changed many times over the years. The early neocons were not the same as later ones, nor was the use of the word.
There’s no need to assume what I mean and why I chose the word, because I’ve got 26 posts under the category “neocons” on the right sidebar. All of them in some way define and describe what neocons are, how people use the term, and several concentrate on why I chose the term. Most of the posts are rather old, but I recommend reading this one for why I chose the term.
The word “neocon” in the very general sense refers to two things: (a) a foreign policy that believes in liberty for the greatest number of people, if possible (note I don’t just say “democracy,” because democracy without liberty is meaningless and can even be dangerous) (and NOT necessarily through war at all), and (2) someone newly come over to conservatism. There is some overlap for some people between those two meanings—for example, both describe me—but not necessarily any overlap at all. The group defined in the way you and snopercod are referring to is primarily historical in nature and doesn’t refer to neocons now, but instead refers to some of the earlier neocons (not all of them by any means) who happen to have retained some of their original social and fiscal liberalism. It is merely descriptive of that group and has little to do with what neocons generally believe today, although I would guess that some still hold to that remnant of their previous liberalism. It’s an individual thing, by no means a requirement or typical or part of the neocon philosophy.
@ neo-neocon:
An interesting read, though I found the Max Boot link even more informative. His hard/soft Wilsonian dichotomy seems focused on the different application of force abroad, but I note that he didn’t address Wilsonianism domestically.
If I’m not reading too much from the name, then I would guess Big Government is on both versions’ agendas. Wilson was a big fan of the “living constitution” bullshit that now infects legal thinking, and it was clearly a pretext for getting his way without having his power diminished by Congress.
Domestically, Wilson was every bit the academic authoritarian that Obama is.
David swadel, 10:27 am — “(Yes, the 2012 election already signaled the death of America. But the 2014 midterms rekindled hope for the fate of our nation and the civilization that has given us every blessing the leftist dupes take for granted – and which they are hastening to destroy out of bigoted ignorance.)”
It’s a slow death, albeit with occasional semblances of life breaking through in fits and starts. But it’s a slow death.
When I want the straight poop I go to the Urban Dictionary:
Neocon
Neoconservative. Criminally insane spenders that believe in killing brown people for the new world order. Huge Orwellian government, unfathomable amounts of spending, bomb tens of thousands of people to death to rearrange the globe. Take the worst aspects of the liberal and conservative positions and combine them into one and you would have a NeoCon.
Sample Usage: Neocons are the greatest threat to life, liberty and property this country has ever known.
On both the left and the right the word has become a cartoonish term of abuse.
My cousin and my Trump friend were astonished when I defended “neocon” by saying I was something of one and then laying into Trump’s lies about the Iraq War.
When Trump wheeled out that tired Code Pink hysteria, he lost me at the policy level, and so did all his supporters and other Republicans who have denounced the Iraq War with no real thought.
Young girls at German swimming pools are being given temporary tattoos with the word ‘NO!’ on them in an attempt to put off rapists.
The stick-on messages say ‘no’ in German and English and officials hope they will lead to a fall in sexual assaults at public baths.
The new move comes after increased fears of sex attacks by migrants in the country…
A Danish teenager who said she was sexually assaulted now faces a fine for using pepper spray against her attacker. The man who pulled her to the ground and tried to undress her fled the scene without any charges.
The incident took place in the center of the small town of Sonderborg in southern Denmark at about 10 p.m. local time Wednesday. She told police that an English-speaking man knocked her to the ground, tried to unbutton her pants and undress her.
[there is always something to say when the world of the elite have this kind of mentality towards those they are supposed to represent, not lord over]
OM Says: August 27th, 2016 at 9:01 pm Because “we” all “know” Trump keeps his commitments.
the above sounds like a man who did try to keep his commitments, to the point of risking more of his personal assets to make good
how about the guys and gals that ran solyndra?
the officers got some nice parachutes, none of them sold their personal assets to save the company, and the carcass was picked over..
is tha what you mean by people who didnt keep their commitments?
Do note that by talking so much about trump and hillary we are missing the troop build ups by russia (baltics, ukraine, etc) and china.. (paracel islands, threatening japan, etc)
we are ignoring their new equipment, and their dealing with IRAN (thanks obama). how the buffer zone bush was creating, dismantled by obama, has led to turkey changing sides, iran being bigger and stronger (and now trying to take iraq and afghanistan), more islamic groups, falls of our partners like egypt… and lots lots more
note that Neo tries to understand the start and processof WWII, but is ignoring the process in front of her of WWIV… (cold war could be called WWIII)
Bloomberg: Putin’s Military Buildup in the Baltic Stokes Invasion Fears / Baltic officials say NATO forces are not enough to deter Russia
Their location, all but cut off from the rest of the alliance by Kaliningrad, has turned them into an oversized version of West Berlin, which had to rely on Western airlifts during a Soviet blockade during 1948-49. Largely surrounded by Russia, the Baltics are too exposed to defend effectively but too important for the alliance not to protect. “NATO could not have militarily prevented a determined Soviet effort to overrun West Berlin, nor can it militarily prevent a determined Russian effort to overrun the Baltic states. But if the Soviets had overrun West Berlin, that would have meant war with NATO,” said Thomas Graham, a senior White House aide
and 10 or so days ago:
Russian troop build-up could reflect ‘very bad’ intentions: Ukraine
A build-up of Russian military on Ukraine’s border with the Crimean region, which has been annexed by Moscow, could reflect “very bad intentions,” Ukraine’s U.N. envoy warned on Thursday after the U.N. Security Council discussed the growing tensions.
and
Pentagon warning over China military build-up
Japan’s East China Sea Military Buildup Continues
China has deployed more troops near Indian border: Pentagon
China Rejects Claims of Troop Buildup Along North Korean Border
South China Sea Tensions Escalate: War Threatens, Obama Passive
Chinese newspaper threatens ‘military confrontation’ with US in South China Sea
America Threatens China: Two US Aircraft Carriers in War Games
China threatens to LAUNCH WAR on US over ‘provocative acts’ after saying it is INEVITABLE CHINA has threatened to launch war on the US after “provocative acts” by the country’s navy.
USA China declared Cyber War two years ago
Since the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled against China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea, there has been a marked increase in rumblings of the unimaginable: War in the Pacific between China, it’s neighbors, and their ally, the US.
China had given signs that it had no intention to respect the Hague’s ruling, but lately rhetoric has been stepped up a notch, with the AFP reporting that a Beijing minister urged preparations for a “people’s war at sea.”
In fact, China’s state-run media has been awash with bluster on the subject of their military and sovereignty.
Chinese jet almost CRASHES into US spy plane just days before leader visits States
British Army and Navy vehicles to be built using FOREIGN steel as UK plants left to ROT
China scraps controversial one-child policy – now they’re allowed TWO
Angry China warns against ‘cradle of war’ in sea
Chinese official: Prepare for a ‘people’s war at sea’ – Business Insider
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
we left it alone so long that even just putting up the past couple of weeks headlines are too long to post!!!!
Usually, regional powers are deterred from making power plays on international waters and shipping lanes by the deterrent factor of the US’s massive military, but Beijing seems emboldened by both their own rapidly advancing military might as well as the US’s preoccupation with the presidential election.
Remember, OBama has denuded out miltary, remoevd our most experienced, changed the social make up, reduced standards, and on and on…
A war between China and it’s neighbors also has the dangerous possibility to divide the world. The US will no doubt come to the aide of it’s allies, and China and Russia have increased military ties which could further complicate the scenario.
yeah… just like what historical prior events?
let me give a bit of a wake up call now that women will be able to be drafted
Available for military service
73,270,043 males, age 18—49 (2010 est.),
71,941,969 females, age 18—49 (2010 est.)
Fit for military service
60,620,143 males, age 18—49 (2010 est.),
59,401,941 females, age 18—49 (2010 est.)
Active personnel 1,301,300
Reserve personnel 811,000
And China?
The PLA is the world’s largest military force, with a strength of approximately 2,285,000 personnel, 0.18% of the country’s population Conscription is legal!!! Military service is compulsory by law (but lately has not been kept)
Active personnel 2,335,000 active (2016)
Reserve personnel 2,300,000 reserve (2012)
Available Manpower: 750,000,000
Fit for Service: 619,000,000
and the chinese do not have to count women…
but note… their force is 400% larger than the US
their potential force is 1000% larger…
They could field a force of a quarter billion and still have a half billion left over just in case
such a force would be over 200 times the size of the total US military
in fact… add up USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Australia military and their forces would be too small compared to what china could field…
remember, we dont have the factories to fight with, they have them
the US has lots of big things that are not capable of fighthing in the seas around china
but if you look to local stuff, not projection of US to china
Navy > Corvette warships
China 15 Ranked 2nd. 8 times more than United States
Navy > Submarines
China 40 Ranked 1st. 20 times more than United States
Paramilitary personnel
China 3.97 million Ranked 1st. 360 times more than United States
Personnel > Per capita
China 2.88 per 1,000 people Ranked 107th.
USA 5.22 per 1,000 people Ranked 70th. 81% more than China
[note that their population is many times the size of the US]\
USA vs CHINA vs Russia
Total Pop: 321 million vs 1,367 million vs 142 million (1.5 billion combined)
Manpower avail: 145 million vs 750 million vs 70 million (820 million combined)
Fit for service (max): 120 million vs 619 million vs 47 million (666 million combined)
Reaching military age annually: 4 million vs 20 million vs 1.3 million (21.3 million combined)
Active military: 1.4 million vs 2.33 million vs 0.7 million (3 million combined)
Active Reserves: 1.1 million vs 2.3 million vs 2.5 million (4.8 million combined)
External Debt: 17 trillion vs 1 trillion vs 0.599 trillion (1.6 trillion combined)
Reserves / Gold: 130 billion vs 3,217 billion vs 377 billion (3.58 trillion combined)
Labor Force: 155 million vs 804 million vs 75 million (879 million combined)
Oil production per day: 8.6 million vs 4.1 million vs 10 million (14.1 million combined)
Oil consumption per day: 19 million vs 10 million vs 3.3 million (13.3 million combined)
Square land area: 9.8 million km vs 9.5 million vs 17 million (26.5 million km combined)
In most large military stuff the US has more… like helicopters, attack helicopters, trainers and fighters. But since what you have is in regard to what you fight, all US stuff has to go half around the world, china stuff just has to sit there and wait… They do not need to project globally, we do. Also, we have hundreds of countries and bases in which we can’t pull our stuff out of… that is, if we pull our stuff out of the area of the Ukraine, what does Russia do?
Given they are communist, they can act or turn on a dime given the powers in the politburo and supreme soviet… we cant even close our borders… and do not think that both countries have resisted putting soldiers in the US… its known that they are already hear, and known that they have caches of weapons in the US.. how much do you think the US has in those countries given our open borders vs their closed borders?
Matt_SE Says:
Humans get confused easily. A Neo con to the Alt Right, is a NWO Socialist/Commie Jew plus Soros.
But a new Neocon, to Neo here, is merely an expression of her process of changing, or becoming a new person, that might be classified as a neocon, or new conservative which defected from Democrat/Leftist/socialist ideals.
There were a lot of neocons in 2003, for some reason. So expressing the notion that there’s another one coming out, is a way to differentiate from the old neocons. Especially the ones with weirder ideas or Libertarian esque positions.
There is a difference between the economic oppression of the oligarchs and the ideological oppression of the collective. Both are repressive, one demands obedience and that your toil be in their service, the other demands that and your mind and soul. Oligarchs are strictly concerned with the material, the collective demands your worship, you will have no other gods before it.-GB
Trum’s issue isn’t his oligarchy, it is his supporters methods and tactics, which are copied from the Left. So they use it for other goals… but that doesn’t really matter since totalitarian is a methodology the Left uses for another goal, evil. If Trum’s supporters like to copy totalitarian methods to use to force people to be free or good or white… well, that’s going to become the same problem.
The issue with Trum as GB noted before, isn’t Trum. It’s all the support and systems around the individual candidates. Totalitarianism comes from the people giving their power, and then having that power used to enslave them. Culturally. Educationally. Spiritually. Politically. Economically. Total. Everything. Even their soul is sold off to Lucifer for “benefits”.
I strongly urge anyone willing to have their taken-for-granted-beliefs challenged by a logical, objective argument, to give it their full attention. Remarkable.
Whatever Art wrote about feminism, I already knew about in 2012. So there was no reason for me to retranslate or re interpret his material and sources any more. The problem with people who want to fight the Left is that they don’t even see the Leftist alliance for what it is…
Matt_SE:
Yes, you are reading WAY too much into the name “Wilsonian.” Way way too much.
First of all, it’s not a term most neocons use for themselves. Second of all, it only refers to foreign policy. That’s why Boot doesn’t talk about domestic policy—because it is irrelevant in terms of the word “neocon.” There is no particular commonality in neocons as far as domestic policy.
Rule of thumb if you want to understand neocons: the term only really means two things. Sometimes both those things but sometimes only one, depending on the person. The first is: a person who used to be of another political persuasion and is now a conservative. Period. The second refers only to foreign policy, and I’ve already explained it: a person who believes that more democracy PLUS liberty in other countries would be in general a good thing, although the “liberty” part is very important and democracy without it is usually a hollow exercise.
The term “neocon” doesn’t have anything to do with domestic policy, except for the “newly conservative” part. In other words, each new conservative has his/her own stance on domestic policy. On that dimension (domestic policy), neocons span the spectrum of conservatism just as conservatives in general do, and many are certainly small government advocates.
Matt_SE @ 5:40 pm,
“No, I don’t “know it,” because I don’t believe it’s true. The USSR was as close to collectivism as any country has ever come, and it was an oligarchy just like fascist countries.”
Actually, I think N. Korea and Cuba come closer but they too have their oligarchy. But that doesn’t address my main point which is that fascist oligarchies are strictly concerned with control of material resources and control of the State. Whereas, totalitarian collectivists want that PLUS your mind and soul.
“Communists do not actually believe all people are equal, or they just don’t care.”
Those who actually believe in communism believe that, some ‘get it’ and some don’t and, that it is the right and obligation of those who ‘get it’ to direct those who don’t get it through whatever means are necessary because the end justifies the means.
“Whatever Art wrote about feminism, I already knew about in 2012. So there was no reason for me to retranslate or re interpret his material and sources any more.” Ymarsakar
Sorry for any lack of clarity. I wasn’t suggesting that Art’s rants on feminism be looked at again. I was encouraging readers here to read the article on American Thinker I linked to; “Reconsidering the Female Franchise” and then watch Bloomfield’s video where she lays out her reasoning, which I find remarkably astute.
“3 Reasons #WhyWomenShouldNotVote (video)”
Geoffrey Britain:
Do you not consider the Nazis a fascist oligarchy? Did they not want people’s bodies and souls about as much or almost as much as the Soviets did? The indoctination (particularly of the youth), widespread propaganda, killing or imprisonment/enslavement of political opponents, neighbors informing on neighbors?
See:
neo,
The Nazi’s proudly proclaimed themselves to be socialists not fascists. It was the Italians under Mussolini who created and promoted fascism. That they were allies no more obviate the differences than did thier other ally, the Japanese. Mussolini and his fascists sought material gains, mainly territorial. While he started out as a socialist, he rejected it later. Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalism which rejects liberalism, Marxism and anarchism.
Geoffrey Britain:
Many many people have argued for decades about whether the Nazis were actually socialists or not, or on left or right. Suffice to say that whatever they originally called themselves, they actually were fascists and most people agree on that, and they were very anti-Communist. They were not socialists as the word is usually thought of, and yes, they were fascists (which is what I was alleging in the first place—were you not saying they were socialists rather than Fascists? Right now I can’t seem to find the comment of yours that I was responding to originally, so perhaps I read it quickly and misread/misunderstood it):
See also this:
The big question is whether to place Nazis on the left or the right. The truth is that they contained elements of both, but it’s a fake distinction because they really were neither, but they definitely were statists. I think the statist vs. non-statist distinction is far more useful. Statists (especially totalitarian statists such as the Soviets and the Nazis) are very very dangerous.
Geoffrey Britain:
I found that comment of yours that I was answering. You wrote:
I then asked you whether you didn’t think the Nazis were a fascist oligarchy who ALSO wanted people’s bodies and souls. You answered:
I then responded about how the Nazis were in fact fascists more than socialists.
Fascism is certainly not incompatible with collective statism, you know. In fact, the Nazis—one of the largest and most well-known and most powerful examples of Fascism—considered the one part and parcel of the other. I am not expert on all the Fascist regimes around the world (there were many during the first half of the 20th Century), but although perhaps the two do not necessarily go hand in hand they certainly can easily go hand in hand, and did in that enormous and powerful case, the Nazis.
” I think the statist vs. non-statist distinction is far more useful. Statists (especially totalitarian statists such as the Soviets and the Nazis) are very very dangerous.” – Neo
Right! This is a key point that gets lost in most debates about the nature of either (e.g. when discussing which is “better”). Both rarely operate purely according to the defined theoretical models under discussion. There is a threshold at which, to the man on the street (i.e. most of “us”), there is little practical difference. Once there, it won’t matter if it is labelled fascist / Nazi or marxist / Communist.
I was encouraging readers here to read the article on American Thinker I linked to
That’s what I took your meaning as. I was including both Art’s links as well as what he wrote about them, although it’s often times hard to tell why or what he is quoting vs what he is commenting on so I didn’t make it very specific in my comment. Either way, both would be included.
neo,
Any form of totalitarianism is very, very dangerous. Yes, there were certainly points of commonality between the Nazi’s “National Socialism” and Mussolini’s fascism. But I’ll stick to the distinction I posited. In general, fascists seek material control and power, while socialist ideology also demands the mind and soul. I believe that overall, history supports that distinction.
History shows both (fascist and socialist totalitarians) exterminate their enemies if they are given a chance. Tally up the millions of the dead and then tell me which (fascist oligarchs or socialist overlords) was “worse” for their victims. Read about the Ethiopians gassed by the Italian fascists (Mussolini) who was only concerned with material control and power. Right, history speaks.
And to Art:
Because I don’t support, or apologize for, or “know” Trump don’t assume I support Obama or the Shrew Queen. I won’t be voting for either Donald or Hillary. The country is in for a hard hard time given the two buffoons that are at the top of the parties. Thank you very much. /s
OM,
That you fail to discern the difference between fascist Mussolini and socialist Hitler isn’t surprising since you ignore the differing purpose of similar methods.
Mussolini gassed the Ethiopians, so as to enslave the rest for their labor in using them to extract Ethiopia’s resources to enrich Italy. While Hitler’s genocidal ambitions were driven by his ideology. Mussolini sought empire, Hitler sought to fundamentally transform the world. That’s what “final solutions” are all about.
Dead was Dead, keep dancing on those pinheads and counting the angels.
Italy didn’t have the means no matter what the morals of Mussolini, and BTW although M. wasn’t as efficient as the Vischy, it didn’t keep Primo Levi out of Auschwitz. History isn’t as cut and dried as you argument suggests.
huxley:
“My cousin and my Trump friend were astonished when I defended “neocon” by saying I was something of one and then laying into Trump’s lies about the Iraq War.”
Regarding Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Trump’s position is based on blatant legal and factual error.
huxley:
“When Trump wheeled out that tired Code Pink hysteria, he lost me at the policy level, and so did all his supporters and other Republicans who have denounced the Iraq War with no real thought.”
Left and alt-Right propaganda about the Iraq intervention, which Trump parrots, both source from Russia, which promulgated the same basic misrepresentation of the Gulf War enforcement during the Clinton administration.
You can explain to your cousin and Trump friend that President Bush’s decision for OIF was a straightforward fact pattern demonstrably correct on the law and facts. The Saddam regime was evidentially in categorical breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, including and especially the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688, in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” with “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions” (UNSCR 1441).
Oops. Fix:
Left and alt-Right propaganda about the Iraq intervention, which Trump parrots, both source from Russia, which promulgated the same basic misrepresentation of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement during the Clinton administration.
Neo:
“The single neoconnish endeavor he undertook was the rebuilding of Iraq postwar”
See the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom about WMD or democracy?” and the answer to “Was the invasion of Iraq perceived to be a nation-building effort?”.
Barring Saddam reversing course and proving the compliance mandated for the ceasefire, in the expected eventuality of Iraqi regime change by whatever agency, US-led peace operations with post-Saddam Iraq were implicit policy under HW Bush and explicit law and policy under Clinton.
Neo:
“and even in that regard he was insufficiently neoconnish and insufficiently devoted to the task initially”
The President’s commitment to the peace with Iraq didn’t change. The pre-war planning for the peace operations was extensive.
Why did the extensive pre-war planning for the post-war, built on a decade-plus of engagement with Iraqis inside and outside Iraq, initially go south so badly?
The flip but true answer is careful plans often break down upon practical contact, especially in an intense competition versus zealously committed, unbounded adversaries. We normally expect a higher cost for adjustment in a war (major combat operations) than its post-war (peace operations), but as we learned the hard lesson, effective guerilla operations can upend that expectation.
That being said, it’s apparent that a critical flaw in the pre-war planning for the peace operations is intelligence analysts significantly under-estimated the Saddam regime’s “widespread terror” (UNCHR) in its domestic governance and “regional and global terrorism” (Iraqi Perspectives Project), which included “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with the al Qaeda network. Saddam’s terrorism was rapidly adapted to the insurgency.
Saddam’s terrorism was not unknown. The conceptual contours of Saddam’s terrorism were correctly identified pre-OIF, and in fact, Saddam’s terrorism in breach of UNSCR 687 was a lead element of the casus belli for OIF per the 2002 AUMF. However, there is a striking gap between the pre-OIF assessment (ref Judith Yaphe, Dan Byman) and the post-war analysis (ref Jim Lacey, Kyle Orton) of the depth of Saddam’s terrorism.
For example, in July 2007, Clinton administration Iraq hand Dan Byman claimed OIF “created a jihadist problem in Iraq where none existed” (Brookings). Yet in November 2007, Jim Lacey reported, according to analysis of captured regime materials, “the [Saddam] regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda” and “Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime” (IPP). Lacey’s work with IPP led him to conclude the Iraqi regime change came “not a moment too soon” (National Review).
According to Bush officials like Doug Feith and the record, US officials were well aware of and planned to deal with Iraqi sectarian frictions (which had much worsened under Saddam since the Iran-Iraq War). However, they were blindsided by the insurgency. The insurgency was primarily a terrorist phenomenon rather than a sectarian phenomenon.
Regarding your criticism of the post-war execution of the peace operations, it’s apparent that a chief reason US officials were blindsided by the insurgency is pre-OIF intelligence analysis significantly under-estimated Saddam’s terrorism.
It was soon apparent following the Gulf War that Saddam would continue to not comply as mandated with the UNSCR 660 series, including UNSCRs 687 and 688, so that Iraqi regime change was anticipated by the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations. As such, built on the policy and actions pursuant to UNSCR 688 accrued since 1991, the Bush 43 administration’s pre-war planning for the OIF peace operations (post-war occupation) was extensive.
So, why did the extensive pre-war planning for the post-war, built on a decade-plus of engagement with Iraqis inside and outside Iraq, go south so badly?
The flip but true answer is careful plans often break down upon practical contact, especially in an intense competition versus zealously committed, unbounded adversaries. We normally expect a higher cost for adjustment in a war (major combat operations) than its post-war (peace operations), but as we learned the hard lesson, effective guerilla operations can upend that expectation.
That being said, it’s apparent that a critical flaw in the pre-war planning for the peace operations is intelligence analysts significantly under-estimated the Saddam regime’s “widespread terror” (UNCHR) in its domestic governance and “regional and global terrorism” (Iraqi Perspectives Project), which included “considerable operational overlap” (IPP) with the al Qaeda network. Saddam’s terrorism was rapidly adapted to the insurgency.
Saddam’s terrorism was not unknown. The conceptual contours of Saddam’s terrorism were correctly identified pre-OIF, and in fact, Saddam’s terrorism in breach of UNSCR 687 was a lead element of the casus belli for OIF per the 2002 AUMF. However, there is a striking gap between the pre-OIF assessment (ref Judith Yaphe, Dan Byman) and the post-war analysis (ref Jim Lacey, Kyle Orton) of the depth of Saddam’s terrorism.
For example, in July 2007, Clinton administration Iraq hand Dan Byman claimed OIF “created a jihadist problem in Iraq where none existed” (Brookings). Yet in November 2007, Jim Lacey reported, according to analysis of captured regime materials, “the [Saddam] regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda” and “Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime” (IPP). Lacey’s work with IPP led him to conclude the Iraqi regime change came “not a moment too soon” (National Review).
According to Bush officials like Doug Feith and the record, US officials were well aware of and planned to deal with Iraqi sectarian frictions (which had much worsened under Saddam since the Iran-Iraq War). However, they were blindsided by the insurgency. The insurgency was primarily a terrorist phenomenon rather than a sectarian phenomenon.
It’s apparent that a chief reason US officials were blindsided by the insurgency before catching up with the OIF Surge is pre-OIF intelligence analysis significantly under-estimated Saddam’s terrorism.
Oops. I accidentally pasted a block of text twice and did some revising without realizing I had doubled text. It’s a bit confusing but the gist should be clear enough.
Correction:
“Clinton administration Iraq hand” is a misleading label for Dan Byman.
My background reading on the Iraq intervention includes Iraq analysis by Byman with the Clinton administration, but he didn’t produce it as a Clinton official. Rather, Byman produced it as “Policy Analyst and Director for Research, Center for Middle East Public Policy, The RAND Corporation (1997-2002)” (Brookings).
The Democrats had to prop up Saddam because Saddam was supporting terrorism. The Left wasn’t going to give up on Islamic Jihad just because of Saddam, after all.
Europe was also selling weapons to Saddam, and much of the Left was already infiltrating and occupying the Military Industrial Complex.
That’s why their propaganda works against Alt Right wake ups. If Saddam was still supporting state funded terrorism, IS would not have attacked them, so they believe because Iraq is having problems, that the Democrats were right. But they cannot admit that the Democrats were helping Saddam fund terrorism, as the ALt Right accuses Clinton and others of funding terrorism and being evil or helping Islam. So if Saddam was killed by Bush II for funding terrorism and supporting evil, and the Democrats sabotaged Bush’s foreign wars to help Islam and Saddam, then the Alt Right would no longer have a stable position from which to criticize Hussein O’s Iraq policies.
It’s a bit complicated of a web, but that’s what happens when humans deceive. They deceive themselves first, and then they never get out of the web they weave.
@Eric – some interesting points.
If I were to put my thumb on a more simplified version of what went wrong that seems to fit the info that you lay out, it was SECDEF Rumsfeld’s beholding to an original strategy that wasn’t working. Comment?
Ultimately, the US has such overwhelming force that only a major foe like Russia or China could militarily pose any challenge, and even then maybe not much. The real challenge is the aftermath.
it was SECDEF Rumsfeld’s beholding to an original strategy that wasn’t working. Comment?
B is part of the Shinseki and Diversity Casey camp. We already talked about this, and that basically is self apparent by now.