Listen to this Democrat defend democracy:
NOTE: See my debate with Eloy in this thread if the topic of democracy interests you. The debate begins in number 32 permalink:
Suffering Succotash
I thought doing something about it was rebuilding the military that was gutted by Obama!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ca...lay_bennett_current_cartoon_2017-03-13_5_.jpg
To no one’s surprise Democrat Rep. Seth Moulton did not mention support for rebuilding the military when every Democrat will cut military spending at every opportunity. It is possible that Moulton does not know that enemies take advantage of a weak military!
I find it odd that Moulton, a former officer in U.S. Marine Corps, and a Harvard graduate, does not understand that Americans had one enemy with conventional weapons at end of WWII. Today there are four enemies with nuclear weapons; Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the near future. Moulton is either pretending he does not understand what happened in Obama’s eight years, or he was sent out by Nutty Nancy Pelosi specifically to spout the same political garbage Democrats began spouting at the beginning of the Cold War.
Let me point out that North Korea is the problem today just as it was during the Truman years. Russian pilots were flying Migs for North Korea. I assume Moulton believes fighting against North Korea will escalate into a nuclear war against Russia although I cannot see it. What I see in Moulton’s comments is a Russian threat if President Trump does adopt the Democrat party’s foreign policy.
“Willingness” is the critical component in the doublespeak phrase “escalate-to-de-escalate”:
Just to be clear on the fear of nuclear war. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be used to force freedom on people. The best that a free people can do as a last resort is use nuclear weapons to remain free by stopping all forms of aggression.
In fact, American Communists called Generals Patton and MacArthur crazy. Those “crazy generals” understood nuclear weapons better than most. The trouble was that most politicians did not understand the political power of a nuclear arsenal and the will to use it against an enemy. They had only to use the threat of the bomb to defeat Soviet Communists in 1946-47. Communism would have been defeated. America could then have concentrated on defeating Communism in China’s civil war, and, by extension, defeated in all of Asia.
NOTE: The willingness to win a total victory is the exact opposite of Democrat foreign policy —— Peace Without Victory.
Conversely, totalitarians always played on the fear of nuclear war in order to take freedom away from those who have it. (Expect Iran’s mullah’s to do the same thing once they have nuclear weapons.) From the day the former Soviet Union detonated its first A-bomb American liberals said: “Better red than dead.” In plain English they were saying: “It is better to accept Communism than it is to have a nuclear war.”
American Communists who had infiltrated the government did understand the importance of the bomb both militarily and politically; hence, they sold this nonsense “If everybody has the bomb nobody will use it.” Giving the Soviet Union nuclear secrets became the number one priority for Americans traitors in support of their Communist ideology. In 1949, the same year Mao came to power in China, Stalin tested his first Atomic Bomb thanks to the help he got from traitors.
Had Americans fought a war against the Soviets in the 1940's they would have destroyed the world is another myth on par with “It is better to accept Communism than it is to have a nuclear war.” The threat of nuclear war aimed the Soviets would have meant the end of Communism had it been used in 1945 when America was infinitely superior militarily. (The troops were already in Europe in addition to using the best remnants of the German Army to defend their country against the Soviet Union.)
Parenthetically, Soviet military invincibility was invented in Hollywood movie plotlines. (Nazi Germany bungling it on the Russian Front did not mean Stalin’s military would have defeated America & Allies.)
Bottom line: If Stalin thought he could defeat the US he would have tried. Ditto the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In truth, Americans had pre-WWII allies in addition to Germany, Italy, Japan and Franco’s Spain, while the Soviet Union had to rely on the countries they were occupying. Given military support, the peoples in Soviet Union satellite countries would have jumped at the chance to boot Soviet Communists out.
It was SAC bombers way back in the 1950s that put the fear of God in the Kremlin? That is why the American Left wanted nothing more than to castrate the Strategic Air Command along with tying up this country in nuclear disarmament treaties. Obama’s treaty New START (April 2010) was a howling success —— FOR RUSSIA —— was ratified less than a generation after the Soviet Union imploded (1991).
NOTE: War is war. Making nuclear war the definition of war has been the number one United Nations scare tactic since 1945.
Sad to say after decades of movies and media propaganda pumping up the United Nations too many Americans are now convinced that a nuclear death is more to be feared than is fighting for their own freedoms. In their minds dying in a nuclear blast is worse than being beheaded by a Muslim, or dying in a skyscraper after a plane hits it.
Death came to Americans on 9-11-2001 without warning just as a nuclear, or a chemical attack, will come from today’s enemies as surely as Hitler invaded Poland in spite of Neville Chamberlain’s assurances. The important consideration is this: Dead is dead and tyranny is tyranny no matter how they come. So is not it better to defend yourself fighting for something with a better than an even chance of winning, than it is to die a victim on a coward’s alter? Winston Churchill put it this way:
Some believe better red than dead, but most Americans prefer death to slavery.
Ronald Reagan said it this way:
America’s Founders would not have rolled over for Communism for any reason:
Philosophically, Communism is immoral along with the fools who refuse to fight for their own freedom. The shame is that they want Socialism for everyone not just for themselves. The worst of it is that they still play both sides. They are more than willing to enjoy the freedom provided by those who fight for it. Should it go the other way they will welcome a victorious enemy with open arms certain they will receive better treatment. The only pleasure I take in their treason is in knowing that nobody trusts a coward or a traitor. Conquerors know that traitors will betray their new masters just as quickly as they betray their own country; ergo; slaughter them first.
America’s Founders had to deal with cowards who feared death by musket fire and grapeshot. Today’s cowards latched onto nuclear war as an excuse to abandon everyone’s freedoms.
Those who would surrender their freedoms without a fight never object to the methods governments use to kill their own people. Cowards might even prefer being beheaded by Muslim fundamentalists. The fact is: The method of death matters not when it comes to fighting against totalitarian government.
Incidentally, did you ever consider this? Dictators do not mind killing their own people, but they are not so quick to die for their beliefs.
Finally, Democrats are gambling that most Americans will surrender rather than fight a nuclear war. I cannot see any other reason for them betraying this country so openly they do not bother to hide it. They have be thinking that Americans have become so soft they will not fight for their sovereignty if they believe the price of resistance is too high.
It is no secret that there are lots of Communists in powerful positions in this country. Many are elected officials, judges, and highly-placed bureaucrats. The question is: Are America’s senior military leaders prepared to defeat American traitors politically as part of defeating foreign enemies militarily?
p.s. Had I been born with a minimum of distrust in my bones I would say that Democrats fear for Russia not the other way around. Democrats loved Russian Communists throughout the Cold War. So it is ludicrous for Moulton to rally ‘round the flag as though he is defending against Putin’s Russia when he only defends democracy.
NOTE: See my debate with Eloy in this thread if the topic of democracy interests you. The debate begins in number 32 permalink:
Suffering Succotash
"Russia has now violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty," Moulton said. "And by the way, the Trump administration is not doing anything about that. This is a serious issue."
I thought doing something about it was rebuilding the military that was gutted by Obama!
To no one’s surprise Democrat Rep. Seth Moulton did not mention support for rebuilding the military when every Democrat will cut military spending at every opportunity. It is possible that Moulton does not know that enemies take advantage of a weak military!
I find it odd that Moulton, a former officer in U.S. Marine Corps, and a Harvard graduate, does not understand that Americans had one enemy with conventional weapons at end of WWII. Today there are four enemies with nuclear weapons; Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the near future. Moulton is either pretending he does not understand what happened in Obama’s eight years, or he was sent out by Nutty Nancy Pelosi specifically to spout the same political garbage Democrats began spouting at the beginning of the Cold War.
Let me point out that North Korea is the problem today just as it was during the Truman years. Russian pilots were flying Migs for North Korea. I assume Moulton believes fighting against North Korea will escalate into a nuclear war against Russia although I cannot see it. What I see in Moulton’s comments is a Russian threat if President Trump does adopt the Democrat party’s foreign policy.
"What Russia now says is they will ‘escalate to deescalate.' They are willing to use [tactical] nuclear weapons to deescalate a conventional attack," Moulton said.
"What if they target American troops like American troops training right now in Poland with a nuclear attack? What are we going to do?" he asked. "That's why this is such a serious threat and why the Trump administration has to take this more serious."
"What if they target American troops like American troops training right now in Poland with a nuclear attack? What are we going to do?" he asked. "That's why this is such a serious threat and why the Trump administration has to take this more serious."
Dem Congressman: Trump Could Lead U.S. to ‘Nuclear War’ With Russia
BY: Alex Griswold
March 17, 2017 10:36 am
Dem Congressman: Trump Could Lead U.S. to ‘Nuclear War’ With Russia
BY: Alex Griswold
March 17, 2017 10:36 am
Dem Congressman: Trump Could Lead U.S. to ‘Nuclear War’ With Russia
“Willingness” is the critical component in the doublespeak phrase “escalate-to-de-escalate”:
A document posted at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says, “Reports about the emergence of a Russian ‘escalate-to-de-escalate’ strategy have fueled perceptions in the West of a government with a greater readiness – even willingness – to use nuclear weapons on a limited scale early in a conflict.”
The report continued, “Retired U.S. Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, then commander of STRATCOM, said in March 2016 that Russia is ‘declaring and recklessly demonstrating its willingness to escalate to de-escalate if required.’ Others have suggested that Russian leaders are signaling a willingness to use nuclear weapons even before an adversary retaliates against a Russian conventional attack by ’employing the threat of selective and limited use of nuclear weapons to forestall opposition to potential aggression’ (emphasis added). (Miller 2015).”
The report continued, “Retired U.S. Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, then commander of STRATCOM, said in March 2016 that Russia is ‘declaring and recklessly demonstrating its willingness to escalate to de-escalate if required.’ Others have suggested that Russian leaders are signaling a willingness to use nuclear weapons even before an adversary retaliates against a Russian conventional attack by ’employing the threat of selective and limited use of nuclear weapons to forestall opposition to potential aggression’ (emphasis added). (Miller 2015).”
Scientists warn Russia could use nukes to 'scare an adversary'
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 03/17/2017 @ 8:44 pm
Scientists warn Russia could use nukes to ‘scare an adversary’
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 03/17/2017 @ 8:44 pm
Scientists warn Russia could use nukes to ‘scare an adversary’
Just to be clear on the fear of nuclear war. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be used to force freedom on people. The best that a free people can do as a last resort is use nuclear weapons to remain free by stopping all forms of aggression.
In fact, American Communists called Generals Patton and MacArthur crazy. Those “crazy generals” understood nuclear weapons better than most. The trouble was that most politicians did not understand the political power of a nuclear arsenal and the will to use it against an enemy. They had only to use the threat of the bomb to defeat Soviet Communists in 1946-47. Communism would have been defeated. America could then have concentrated on defeating Communism in China’s civil war, and, by extension, defeated in all of Asia.
NOTE: The willingness to win a total victory is the exact opposite of Democrat foreign policy —— Peace Without Victory.
Conversely, totalitarians always played on the fear of nuclear war in order to take freedom away from those who have it. (Expect Iran’s mullah’s to do the same thing once they have nuclear weapons.) From the day the former Soviet Union detonated its first A-bomb American liberals said: “Better red than dead.” In plain English they were saying: “It is better to accept Communism than it is to have a nuclear war.”
American Communists who had infiltrated the government did understand the importance of the bomb both militarily and politically; hence, they sold this nonsense “If everybody has the bomb nobody will use it.” Giving the Soviet Union nuclear secrets became the number one priority for Americans traitors in support of their Communist ideology. In 1949, the same year Mao came to power in China, Stalin tested his first Atomic Bomb thanks to the help he got from traitors.
Had Americans fought a war against the Soviets in the 1940's they would have destroyed the world is another myth on par with “It is better to accept Communism than it is to have a nuclear war.” The threat of nuclear war aimed the Soviets would have meant the end of Communism had it been used in 1945 when America was infinitely superior militarily. (The troops were already in Europe in addition to using the best remnants of the German Army to defend their country against the Soviet Union.)
Parenthetically, Soviet military invincibility was invented in Hollywood movie plotlines. (Nazi Germany bungling it on the Russian Front did not mean Stalin’s military would have defeated America & Allies.)
Bottom line: If Stalin thought he could defeat the US he would have tried. Ditto the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In truth, Americans had pre-WWII allies in addition to Germany, Italy, Japan and Franco’s Spain, while the Soviet Union had to rely on the countries they were occupying. Given military support, the peoples in Soviet Union satellite countries would have jumped at the chance to boot Soviet Communists out.
It was SAC bombers way back in the 1950s that put the fear of God in the Kremlin? That is why the American Left wanted nothing more than to castrate the Strategic Air Command along with tying up this country in nuclear disarmament treaties. Obama’s treaty New START (April 2010) was a howling success —— FOR RUSSIA —— was ratified less than a generation after the Soviet Union imploded (1991).
NOTE: War is war. Making nuclear war the definition of war has been the number one United Nations scare tactic since 1945.
Sad to say after decades of movies and media propaganda pumping up the United Nations too many Americans are now convinced that a nuclear death is more to be feared than is fighting for their own freedoms. In their minds dying in a nuclear blast is worse than being beheaded by a Muslim, or dying in a skyscraper after a plane hits it.
Death came to Americans on 9-11-2001 without warning just as a nuclear, or a chemical attack, will come from today’s enemies as surely as Hitler invaded Poland in spite of Neville Chamberlain’s assurances. The important consideration is this: Dead is dead and tyranny is tyranny no matter how they come. So is not it better to defend yourself fighting for something with a better than an even chance of winning, than it is to die a victim on a coward’s alter? Winston Churchill put it this way:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Some believe better red than dead, but most Americans prefer death to slavery.
Ronald Reagan said it this way:
America’s Founders would not have rolled over for Communism for any reason:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. Benjamin Franklin
Give me Liberty, or Give me Death! Patrick Henry
Give me Liberty, or Give me Death! Patrick Henry
Philosophically, Communism is immoral along with the fools who refuse to fight for their own freedom. The shame is that they want Socialism for everyone not just for themselves. The worst of it is that they still play both sides. They are more than willing to enjoy the freedom provided by those who fight for it. Should it go the other way they will welcome a victorious enemy with open arms certain they will receive better treatment. The only pleasure I take in their treason is in knowing that nobody trusts a coward or a traitor. Conquerors know that traitors will betray their new masters just as quickly as they betray their own country; ergo; slaughter them first.
America’s Founders had to deal with cowards who feared death by musket fire and grapeshot. Today’s cowards latched onto nuclear war as an excuse to abandon everyone’s freedoms.
Those who would surrender their freedoms without a fight never object to the methods governments use to kill their own people. Cowards might even prefer being beheaded by Muslim fundamentalists. The fact is: The method of death matters not when it comes to fighting against totalitarian government.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater
Incidentally, did you ever consider this? Dictators do not mind killing their own people, but they are not so quick to die for their beliefs.
Finally, Democrats are gambling that most Americans will surrender rather than fight a nuclear war. I cannot see any other reason for them betraying this country so openly they do not bother to hide it. They have be thinking that Americans have become so soft they will not fight for their sovereignty if they believe the price of resistance is too high.
It is no secret that there are lots of Communists in powerful positions in this country. Many are elected officials, judges, and highly-placed bureaucrats. The question is: Are America’s senior military leaders prepared to defeat American traitors politically as part of defeating foreign enemies militarily?
p.s. Had I been born with a minimum of distrust in my bones I would say that Democrats fear for Russia not the other way around. Democrats loved Russian Communists throughout the Cold War. So it is ludicrous for Moulton to rally ‘round the flag as though he is defending against Putin’s Russia when he only defends democracy.
