And sending missiles and bullets and other arms over there is going to "lose the USA"?You see, it is better to lose Ukraine, or Poland or even Germany than lose the USA.
The United States are not ready for the large scale war.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And sending missiles and bullets and other arms over there is going to "lose the USA"?You see, it is better to lose Ukraine, or Poland or even Germany than lose the USA.
The United States are not ready for the large scale war.
It isn't a "war party" to want to fulfill our treaty obligations that go back nearly 70 years. And it isn't the U.S. or NATO threatening the Russians.^^^Told ya. Now that the War Party is in charge, the drums are LOUD!
We're obligated to defend any of the 27 other members of NATO with our own blood and treasure if necessary.Defend them...who is "them"? If the Rookies are in France...sure. If the Rooskies are in Ukraine and the French have sent folks over there...nope.
For some reason democrat regimes combined with the U.S. media were historically in favor of war in the 20th century, until it went bad. In whistle stop campaign tours, liberal elitist academic Woody Wilson sought to distance himself from dastardly republican heroes like Teddy Roosevelt and promised that he would never send American boys to fight in a foreign war. Wilson broke his campaign promise and the media supported sending Doughboys to fight for France in a war of attrition in filthy trenches. We had to do it again about 25 years later when the media supported FDR's invitation of a Japanese attack in the Pacific when the prevailing opinion among democrat elitists, supported by the media, was that the Japanese couldn't build a ship that would float or a plane that would fly. FDR's hand picked heir apparent,, timid Harry Truman couldn't control his own hand picked general in Korea but the media manufactured a feisty persona for Truman and called Korea "the forgotten war" even though we lost as many American Troops in three years as we did in Vietnam in ten years. LBJ's "Tonkin Gulf Crisis" was fraudulent but the mainstream media supported sending Troops to Vietnam
Wilson broke his campaign promise and the media supported sending Doughboys to fight for France in a war of attrition in filthy trenches.
Which "Gulf of Tonkin" crisis are you referring to? The famous one on August 4th never happened and is the one people often refer to.
But the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2nd, absolutely happened and was openly admitted to by the North Vietnamese.
Truman lost control of his WW1 veteran general who never spent a single night in Korea and depended on "intelligence" from racist WW2 general Ned Almond, who posted only glowing progress while U.S. Troops were lured into the biggest ambush in military history at the Chosin. The casualty lists from Korea were estimated at about 50,000 troops for abut 40 years until revised down by the Clinton military archivists that restricted Korean war deaths to the actual peninsula. What happened to the other 15,000 Troops who died during the Korean War conflict?Which "Gulf of Tonkin" crisis are you referring to? The famous one on August 4th never happened and is the one people often refer to.
But the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2nd, absolutely happened and was openly admitted to by the North Vietnamese.
and the U.S. did not lose as many troops in the Korean War in only three years as it lost in Vietnam. That's a myth promoted by Korean War veterans (my dad was one) and their advocates. The U.S. lost roughly 59,000 soldiers in the Vietnam War and about 33,000 in the Korean War.
The U.S. could be ready surprisingly quickly.You see, it is better to lose Ukraine, or Poland or even Germany than lose the USA.
The United States are not ready for the large scale war.
They died around the rest of the world. Remember that even in the most peaceful years of the Cold War thousands of Americans died.Truman lost control of his WW1 veteran general who never spent a single night in Korea and depended on "intelligence" from racist WW2 general Ned Almond, who posted only glowing progress while U.S. Troops were lured into the biggest ambush in military history at the Chosin. The casualty lists from Korea were estimated at about 50,000 troops for abut 40 years until revised down by the Clinton military archivists that restricted Korean war deaths to the actual peninsula. What happened to the other 15,000 Troops who died during the Korean War conflict?
Fifteen thousand Americans "died around the world" in the three years during the Korean conflict? How is that possible? About seven or eight thousand Troops died during the entire ten year Iraq/Iran/ terrorist conflicts around the world in the 80's and 90's.They died around the rest of the world. Remember that even in the most peaceful years of the Cold War thousands of Americans died.
It isn't a "war party" to want to fulfill our treaty obligations that go back nearly 70 years. And it isn't the U.S. or NATO threatening the Russians.
We're obligated to defend any of the 27 other members of NATO with our own blood and treasure if necessary.
who never spent a single night in Korea
Fifteen thousand Americans "died around the world" in the three years during the Korean conflict? How is that possible?
Fifteen thousand Americans "died around the world" in the three years during the Korean conflict? How is that possible? About seven or eight thousand Troops died during the entire ten year Iraq/Iran/ terrorist conflicts around the world in the 80's and 90's.
Democrats get us into wars. So lectures from Democrats don’t warrant much weight.
as considered national policy, a decision on whether or not to get entangled in foreign military conflicts is actually more complex than the present day liberals like to see or admit.
Think back to Jolly Old England around the time that Hitler was on the move. They had their political debates. Chamberlain and the majority sought their “peace in our time” and guys like Churchill argued that a maniac like Hitler HAD to be fought.
Our present day libs sound like the Chamberlain faction. Putin may not be the complete monster that Hitler was, but it is still pretty clear that he is seeking to re-create the SOVIET UNION. That possible outcome doesn’t bode well for the free world or world safety.
I wonder if the present day Chamberlains are capable of contemplating this notion of “war bad.” Yeah. It mostly is. But fighting a war is how Hitler and the Japanese empire got defeated. So, sometimes, war is actually necessary.
Look it up. As recently as the 1980s with a far smaller military overall and few active conflicts an average of 3,000 American military personnel died around the world every year. Training, accidents, what have you.
Sending missiles and bullets won't change anything. The question is in possible escalation in Europe, Middle East, Africa, Latin America and more than possible military cooperation between Russia and China.And sending missiles and bullets and other arms over there is going to "lose the USA"?
Re WW I besides the Zimmerman Telegram there was the U-boat campaign in the Atlantic and Med and the sinkings of U.S. ships.
The Unpatriotic Sissies Who Were Sheltered From the Draft Took Over America and Changed the Narrative in Order to Exclude Their TreasonWhich "Gulf of Tonkin" crisis are you referring to? The famous one on August 4th never happened and is the one people often refer to.
But the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2nd, absolutely happened and was openly admitted to by the North Vietnamese.
and the U.S. did not lose as many troops in the Korean War in only three years as it lost in Vietnam. That's a myth promoted by Korean War veterans (my dad was one) and their advocates. The U.S. lost roughly 59,000 soldiers in the Vietnam War and about 33,000 in the Korean War.