You are not logged in.
Russia is being who they always have been- an imperial power which conquers and subjugates people dumb enough to leave themselves defenseless. Yes, Hitler did the same thing. Does that make Hitler like Stalin or Stalin like Hitler? Is it a distinction without a difference?
Hitler or Stalin doesn't matter, Putin and his regime are evil and this is now. With nuclear weapons. Appeasement doesn't work. I could cite history of WW2 or Chechnya & Georgia. If Russia is not stopped you will be living the movie Red Dawn.
Offline
I almost forgot, but the French told the Ukrainians that the Russians weren't really going to invade.
Both America and the United Kingdom told the Ukrainians that the Russians absolutely were going to invade.
President Zelensky believed the French, until the Russians invaded, because he didn't want to believe that the Russians would ever do such a thing. That's why they weren't more prepared, even though their military was preparing the entire time.
Aren't "allies" great?
Offline
I heard Zelensky plead for help, claiming the Russians were about to invade. He knew they were about to invade, and begged for help. Many US officials claimed Russia wouldn't invade, asked Ukraine to calm down. American politicians dithered and debated, doing nothing, hoping it would go away. Ukraine was prepared, that's why Russia's blitzkrieg on Kyiv didn't work.
Offline
If you think allies are useless, why don't you start a fight with a squad of marines. Just you, a veteran of the US navy, a single individual against a squad of actively serving marines.
Offline
RobertDyck,
If Russia is not stopped you will be living the movie Red Dawn.
Nobody here thinks President Putin should be appeased, or that such a thing is even possible.
If Putin decides to nuke anyone, whatever does or does not happen in Ukraine won't matter in the slightest, because it's utterly irrelevant to what their nuclear weapons are capable of.
If you're worried about a Red Dawn scenario, then you'd better start worrying a lot more about communist China. We've seen what the conventional forces of the Russian military can do. They're great at killing unarmed civilians. Whenever they run across someone who knows how to fight, they don't do so well.
American politicians dithered and debated, doing nothing, hoping it would go away. Ukraine was prepared, that's why Russia's blitzkrieg on Kyiv didn't work.
President Biden was the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces when the Russians invaded Ukraine. He didn't require anyone's permission to do what he thought was best. If he thought the Russians were about to invade Ukraine, then he had sole discretion to take action to prevent that. That is the authority granted to our Commander-in-Chief. That's what that title actually means. Whatever he did do, it didn't prevent the invasion.
I'm unaware of anyone within our defense apparatus who thought that the Russians wouldn't invade. Our thinking about what the Russians would do hasn't changed since President Obama was in office when Russia invaded Ukraine the first time.
Russia's blitzkrieg on Ukraine didn't work because they didn't bring fuel for their vehicles, food for their personnel, or ammunition. Basically, they don't know how to fight. They sure as hell don't know how to plan an invasion.
Anyway, thank you for making the point about how incompetent President Biden has been. That probably wasn't what you intended, or maybe it was, but good job either way. Gold star for you.
If you think allies are useless, why don't you start a fight with a squad of marines. Just you, a veteran of the US navy, a single individual against a squad of actively serving marines.
What kind of ally tells me to pick a fight with my fellow military personnel, in order to prove to me how much I need allies?
I would thank you for making my point again, but I'm not really thankful that you did.
Offline
'More predictable': Vladimir Putin says he prefers Joe Biden to Donald Trump
Well, that settles it. President Putin says he prefers to work with President Biden. Every loyal American should do their part to appease President Putin by voting for the American President who the Russian President prefers to work with. President Putin didn't like President Trump because he was too unpredictable. We have our marching orders straight from the Kremlin, comrades. Vote Biden.
Offline
President Biden was the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces when the Russians invaded Ukraine. He didn't require anyone's permission to do what he thought was best. If he thought the Russians were about to invade Ukraine, then he had sole discretion to take action to prevent that. That is the authority granted to our Commander-in-Chief. That's what that title actually means. Whatever he did do, it didn't prevent the invasion.
Actually you're wrong. US Constitution Article One Section 8 granted Congress authority to declare war. Once declared, the President runs the war. But the President does not have authority to initiate war.
Russia's blitzkrieg on Ukraine didn't work because they didn't bring fuel for their vehicles, food for their personnel, or ammunition. Basically, they don't know how to fight. They sure as hell don't know how to plan an invasion.
That's over simplistic. Russia sent elite paratroopers to capture the airport of Kyiv. They intended to land aircraft with more troops, ammunition and food. Tanks were supposed to race from Belorus to Kyiv, then refuel using gas stations in Kyiv. But Ukrainian soldiers recaptured the airport before a single Russian aircraft could land. Tanks were delayed by rush hour traffic, then Ukrainian forces destroyed lead Russian tanks creating an obstacle. They depended on Ukrainian roads. If Russian paratroopers held the airport long enough for one aircraft to land, and tanks arrived in Kyiv, then Russia would have succeeded. But Ukrainian forces pinned down Russian tanks until their fuel ran out.
One principle of war Russia appeared to forget: any battle plan does not survive contact with the enemy. They should have brought fuel and rations in case something went wrong. But they didn't.
Offline
I'm sorry you didn't understand the metaphor. You as a single individual represent a country with no allies. The squad represents your opponent and all his allies. One against several. How do you think that will turn out?
Here's a clip to demonstrate. This is from the 2009 movie "Star Trek". The movie completely rewrote Kirk's back story. In this movie he's an arrogant SOB with no military experience. In this clip he hasn't joined yet, so doesn't even have basic training. He's in a bar trying to pick up a woman. The woman is an officer cadet, so a member of Starfleet security tries to defend her. The security guy (Military Police) has 3 buddies with him. A bar fight ensues. Kirk gets pummeled.
YouTube: Star Trek - Bar Fight
Offline
RobertDyck,
Actually you're wrong. US Constitution Article One Section 8 granted Congress authority to declare war. Once declared, the President runs the war. But the President does not have authority to initiate war.
Actually, I'm not wrong, you just don't know what the law is, as it's presently written. Only Congress can declare war, but POTUS can, at his discretion, initiate military action for a period of 60 days, without requiring a Congressional declaration of war.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also known as the War Powers Act) "is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.” As part of our system of governmental “checks and balances,” the law aims to check the executive branch’s power when committing U.S. military forces to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. It stipulates the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days.
If you want to debate what you and I think the law should be (that only Congress can declare war), then we're going to agree. I argue from a point of reality and knowledge of what the law is, as it's presently written. Is the President required to notify Congress? Absolutely. Consult with them ahead of time before initiating military action? No. Should he consult with them anyway? I would hope so.
This idealized world that you think should exist, simply does not.
That's over simplistic. Russia sent elite paratroopers to capture the airport of Kyiv. They intended to land aircraft with more troops, ammunition and food. Tanks were supposed to race from Belorus to Kyiv, then refuel using gas stations in Kyiv. But Ukrainian soldiers recaptured the airport before a single Russian aircraft could land. Tanks were delayed by rush hour traffic, then Ukrainian forces destroyed lead Russian tanks creating an obstacle. They depended on Ukrainian roads. If Russian paratroopers held the airport long enough for one aircraft to land, and tanks arrived in Kyiv, then Russia would have succeeded. But Ukrainian forces pinned down Russian tanks until their fuel ran out.
Fuel consumption is a fairly straightforward thing to calculate. We calculated and reported our fuel burn several times per day. Peace or war, it didn't matter. That's how important it is. Any unit commander worthy of the title sees these reports every day and knows ahead of time how much fuel his unit burns. During both exercises and contingency operations planning, these figures are taken into account by the mission and operations planners, who must ensure that all involved units are adequately resourced with fuel resupply, or else not commit them to the fight. This is one of the reasons why we couldn't make faster progress against the Japanese during WWII. Even with all the ships we built and oil we produced, fuel burn rates had to be managed at every level. That's why you never heard about American, Australian, British, and Canadian ships running out of fuel. I'm sure it happened after ships received battle damage, but not before.
If your troops weren't issue rations for at least a week, that's criminal incompetence. There were circumstances related to fighting when we didn't have time to eat, but not having food at all would be enough to get any of our commanders relieved of their office. Stocks of rations and potable water are another must-have checklist item reported up the chain of comand, every single day.
The ammunition consumption rate overwhelming what planners had budgeted is the only thing I accept as being variable enough to get behind the power curve. I've never seen anyone plan this properly, because it looks like a graph of the output of a wind turbine's power output.
Someone should've spoken up and told dear leader that his assault force wouldn't make it to Kiev without more of everything they clearly didn't bring with them. That is a failure to plan, plain and simple. Planning is part of every military operation. Competent leaders focus on logistics, because the surest way to lose a fight is not bringing enough fuel, food, and ammo.
One principle of war Russia appeared to forget: any battle plan does not survive contact with the enemy. They should have brought fuel and rations in case something went wrong. But they didn't.
The column of Russian vehicles headed to Kiev didn't encounter the enemy. They were abandoned and the Russians walked back to Belarus.
The only "enemy" those soldiers fought against was the incompetence of their own leadership.
Offline
RobertDyck,
I'm sorry you didn't understand the metaphor. You as a single individual represent a country with no allies. The squad represents your opponent and all his allies. One against several. How do you think that will turn out?
I understood what you wrote just fine.
What you apparently didn't understand is that what you suggested was a prime example of not being a good ally- namely, following or suggesting an unwise course of action. Allies don't fight each other and they don't suggest doing unwise things to their other allies. Every American President, from President G.W. Bush to President Trump, has told the Europeans they're grossly unprepared to fight the Russians, that there is credible intelligence about what their ultimate aims are, that the intelligence indicates a plan to invade NATO member nations, and that being unprepared is an unwise course of action with the public statements, policy papers, and actions of the Putin regime.
Edit:
Is the idea cemented yet that you can't pay lip service to the idea of being an ally, and then do whatever you want without consequence?
Failing to prepare is tantamount to preparing to fail.
There's no misunderstanding between President Putin and the West. He wants the land that NATO countries sit on, because Russians are paranoid about their security in general, Putin personally wants to rebuild "the Soviet Empire", and Putin's desires for "Russian greatness" (conquest and empire) are completely incompatible with the aims of NATO. That's why we butt heads with him all the time. It's not because he's a genius and we're all too dumb to figure him out. He's a standard issue KGB hack from the Cold War lamenting the death of the USSR.
A decade ago, we could've provided assurances that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO to see if that forestalled an invasion. If not, then we would've had our answer and could've proceed to act accordingly. If it wasn't Putin, then it would've been chaos or another "strong man" dictator type with the same basic goals.
Offline
Competent leaders focus on logistics, because the surest way to lose a fight is not bringing enough fuel, food, and ammo.
We agree. I'm just saying that a claim they "forgot" is over simplistic. They counted on taking Kyiv quickly, with no contingency. When they took Crimea, it was easy. Ukraine was not expecting war and troops were green. But in 2022 they had been fighting Russia for 8 years, were veteran and expecting an invasion. So counting on light resistance was stupid. Russia was planning to bring supplies by air to the Kyiv airport, and by train. Russia relies heavily on trains for logistics. And Ukrainian troops focussed on supply trucks. They used artillery and Javelin missiles. They destroyed enough tanks to create an obstacle, then focused on supply trucks. I would have thought using a Javelin missile on a supply truck is a waste, but Ukraine knew Russia's vulnerability. It worked very well.
Offline
I understood what you wrote just fine.
What you apparently didn't understand is that what you suggested was a prime example of not being a good ally- namely, following or suggesting an unwise course of action.
Actually I am trying to be a good ally. Suggesting a bar fight to teach the necessity of allies ensures a strong alliance. And I don't seriously expect you to get into a bar fight, just visualize it as a lesson. Allies are important. Trump's attempt to undermine NATO is very dangerous. You questioned the value of allies, so I'm trying to emphasize the need.
Offline
RobertDyck,
My basic point is that the Russian military, as of right now, certainly when the war began, is incompetent or unable to effectively fight. I don't believe that will remain the case forever, but Europeans have a golden grace period to prepare for war. If war never comes, then we should all be so lucky, and I mean all of us, regardless of what side we're on.
We used Javelins on individual enemy snipers. The question of when and where to use something like an expensive missile system is complex, but generally boils down to, "if the damage done by this enemy could easily cost as much or more than the weapon system, then you use the weapon system to avoid the casualties that could result from not using it. Money can be replaced over time. A fully trained and seasoned combat infantryman with knowledge of the local terrain and people is very difficult to replace in a period of time that matters. That is why using a Javelin on a supply truck or sniper can be completely justifiable and the preferred course of action.
The same is true of guided artillery munitions. If the Russians were firing as many shells per day as they claimed to be, or anything in that same ballpark, then they were burning out the barrels at an unsustainable rate. Barrels don't retain usable accuracy for hitting point targets past about 10,000 shells, sometimes half of that. A shell costs $2K. The guidance kit costs $40K. At extended ranges, you could easily fire 50 shells to hit the target. You can either go broke firing unguided shells and burning out barrels, or you can fire 1 golden BB, nail the target on the first shot, greatly extending the service life of the barrel in the process, and slip away before counter-battery fire can return the favor.
America's military is about to be seriously engaged on the other side of the world fighting real communists, rather than oligarch dictator leftovers from communism in Russia. President Trump is delivering a warning, which our allies don't want to hear, because they don't want to spend money or lives doing their own fighting. He's the first President to make this point crystal clear. The message he delivered, which all American Presidents in this century have attempted to deliver, is finally being listened to and accepted as fact. America alone cannot be the guarantor of peace and prosperity across the entire world, regardless of circumstances.
Being an ally of America doesn't mean America does most of the fighting and spends most of its treasure to defend allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves, but don't want to, because of what it will cost them. Maintaining freedom is never cheap or easy, but the alternative will cost you everything. Decide which price is too high, spending enough money on your own defense, or the total devastation that comes from being woefully unprepared for an attack by a ruthless enemy like Russia. America routinely hands out sweetheart deals for best-in-class weapon systems and training for nations which truly cannot afford them. Europeans could and should do the same amongst each other if they don't want American weapons and training. Europeans are every bit as capable of producing world-class weapon systems and training programs when they decide to do it.
I did not question the value of allies, nor does President Trump, he and I question the value of alliances where only one party to the alliance is upholding its obligations as a member of that alliance. Again, I don't care if you agree with what your nation signed its good name to. That's between you and your leadership, not America. You voted for the people who represent your interests. The fact of the matter is that your leadership agreed to it, reneged on their agreements, never attempted to renegotiate the terms of their agreements, they ignored repeated good-faith requests by American Presidents to honor their agreements for the past 20+ years, and now comes the wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who know that war is coming and they're totally unprepared. Start making a good faith effort now while there is still time. America is reinvesting into our industrial base and defense industrial base as fast as we can. Europe should be doing the same thing, with at least the same degree of urgency about the matter.
America has provided $200B in defense aid to Ukraine. The European Union has only provided about $25B. The American and European Union economies are pretty much equal in terms of GDP. Why is America alone providing 8 times as much military aid to fight a nation that's literally on Europe's doorstep when we both have equal economic power? This is not a rhetorical question. Americans want an answer that holds water.
If you're going to pay huge sums of money for oil and gas to Russia, a belligerent power with plans to invade your nations, because you don't want to drill your own oil wells, so as to appease your wackadoodle environmentalists (this is what Biden did here in America for political reasons, while demanding that the Saudis provide more oil and gas, while also bad-mouthing The Kingdom's leadership, and predictably our ally, Saudi Arabia, told him to go pound sand), demand that a foreign nation spend its blood and treasure defending you from the people you're paying money to, while incessantly bad mouth the very existence of American military bases and personnel stationed in European countries and acting as if their very existence is going to bring about war, then you're not behaving as an ally. You're behaving as a puppet state of Russia. That has to stop, because it's the dictionary definition of undermining NATO from within. America is more than happy to leave Europe and let the Europeans govern themselves, but if you expect us to fight and die defending European soil from a nation your military forces really ought to be able to wipe the floor with, then for goodness sake act like it!
Offline
RobertDyck,
If you can't figure out why the war in the Pacific is so important to America, it's because the Chinese and North Koreans are going to overrun all the places that make the computer chips that make modern military and civil technology possible. If we don't heavily reinforce indigenous forces, there's not going to be much left when they're done.
It takes 10 years to build a semi-conductor fab facility. There's not much capacity left in America to do that, although thankfully President Biden has reinvested some money here in America to make those chips, without which no modern military or civil technology is possible. This is one of the few things President Biden has done that I both agree with and am thankful that his administration did. The problem is that this should've been done 10 years ago. We've run out of time. Now we're only left with bad options and worse ones.
Offline
I'm aware that China continues to threaten Taiwan. And Taiwan fabricates all high-end chips: processors for desktop computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones. And servers.
A news announcement a couple weeks ago from China. They inspected ballistic missile installations. They found liquid fuel rockets with water in their fuel tanks. And solid fuel rockets had chunks of fuel carved out to be used as fuel to cook meals. These are the things they let foreign media report, there's probably much more. Chairman Xi made a point of eliminating corruption, but this shows he has not been nearly as successful as he thought. Peter Zeihan estimates 10 years before China is in any condition to fight a major war. Oh, wait! Didn't you just say that establishing chip fabrication will take 10 years?
China has a major demographic problem due to their One Child policy. In 2015 China changed their policy to Two-Child, and May 2021 to Three-Child. Despite this China's fertility rate dropped in 2022 to 1.09 babies per woman. Reminder: a nation needs 2.1 to sustain the population. People in large Chinese cities live in apartments or condos. Living space is limited, so fertility rate in large cities dropped to 0.5. Even if they could reverse this now it would take time for babies to grow to productive adult workers. Based on demographics, Chinese workforce will drop dramatically in 20 years. Same for military service personnel.
What's going on in Ukraine will either encourage dictatorships like China to take action soon before it's too latez or discourage them. Supporting Ukraine now will prevent many other wars later.
Offline
I have called upon the US to cut back on military spending, and close many overseas military bases. Save money, focus on domestic economy.
Canada has been a peacekeeper since Cyprus. Canadian Navy has fought pirates off the coast of Somalia. Participated in Afghanistan. But after America cancelled production of F-22, Lockheed-Martin drastically increased price of F-35. Many allies said we cannot afford that, and it isn't our job to support Lockheed-Martin profits. There was a proposal in 2012 for Canada to update design of Avro Arrow and build them to replace CF-18 fighters. But the government didn't go for it. In many ways it would have fit Canadian needs better than any other fighter. President Trump forced Lockheed-Martin to drop price of F-35 to something reasonable. The Canadian government is currently working on purchasing them. Canada had a couple major accidents with Navy supply ships. As a result we currently have a couple commercial ships filling in while bureaucrats dither.
Canada has supplied so much to Ukraine that Canada's major opposition political party claims there's not enough ammunition left for our own forces.
Canada and Europe are doing their part. Don't act like it's all the US. And seriously! Why would the US need 11 Carrier Strike Groups? The US currently has 10 Nimitz class and 1 Ford class carriers. 2 more Ford class under construction, and 1 more on order. Planned are 10 Ford carriersz to replace Nimitz. But why would America need 10 Strike Groups? I would think 1 near Taiwan, 1 in the Mediterranean, 1 in the Arabian Sea, and 1 close to home. That's 4 total. On top of that America has helicopter carriers. How many carriers do you think America needs?
Offline
Ps. Canada has NO US military bases on Canadian soil. We have joint training exercises: Canada has lots of land suitable for army training simulations, and Canada sends fighter pilots down to "Top Gun" school in Miramar FL. DEW line radar installations in Canada's north are owned and operated by Canadian military personnel. Canada is part of NATO and NORAD. But no US bases on Canadian soil. Due to the war of 1812 it will stay that way.
Offline
RobertDyck,
1. The US is not going to cut defense spending specifically because our allies did not live up to their defense spending agreements for the past 20 years. The US has exceeded our defense spending obligation for that very reason. If our NATO allies actually maintained their defense spending at the same levels they did during the Cold War, the US would not feel the need to spend so much money on defense.
2. The F-22 was ridiculously more expensive to build and maintain than the F-35. If Canada balked at the price of the F-35, then it would've flatly rejected the cost of the F-22. President Obama probably did everyone a favor by cancelling F-22 production. The tech is now 20+ years out-of-date.
3. If Canada's munitions stocks have been depleted by what they sent to Ukraine, then they need to make more. Period. Canada needs to have their own munitions manufacturing industry that covers small arms ammo, mortar and artillery shells, and iron bombs for aircraft. I can accept that rocket motors and missiles require so much infrastructure that it may not be worth the cost and effort, but America has been supplying thousands of those.
4. The US has spent $200B on the Ukraine War. Canada and the European Union have a GDP equal to or slightly greater than America. The other EU nations have contributed $25B. For equally-sized economies, a single nation should not be contributing 8 times as much money on defense materiel input to the war effort.
5. The minimum number of super carriers fielded by the US Navy is congressionally mandated. The US Navy shall maintain no fewer than 11 super carrier battle groups. That is federal law that no political party or personality, to include President Trump, has ever sought to change. There is no way around this except to change the law. Convincing enough politicians to do that is highly unlikely.
6. Unlike Canada, Europe is on the other side of the world. If there were no usable airfields in the required locations in Europe, due to Russian attacks or invasions, then we have mobile air bases at sea ("super carrier battle groups") for that specific scenario.
Offline
clark,
Being American quite literally has nothing to do with where you're originally from. It has everything to do with how you think and act. I can't recall anyone claiming otherwise. I know that I've never made such a claim.
I believe this way of thinking started to change among some after the 911 attacks when four groups of men with outside help organized hijacker terrorist attacks and carried out within the USA, attacks by people inside the USA in an act of terror against the United States of America. There were probably other events that began to change minds, the 1993 World Trade Center truck / van bombing and the taking of US hostages in foreign countries.
If you do not have borders you do not have a nation, what is happening at the US border is a massive tragedy, there is theft, child abuse, human smuggling and group involved human trafficking, shipment of weaponry drugs and who knows how many terrorists on 'watch lists' have crossed without record, I am not sure why the Joe Biden Kamala Harris Admin reversed so many border policy, would it take millions dying from trafficked drugs for something do be done?
I have said it to you before, there are too many jihadi islamists but not every person from an islamic jihadi culture is a terrorist however they are raised inside this toxic intolerant culture and it is a risk to take so many inside your nation, a trojan horse, their islamic books even describe infiltration of foreign lands, when you do not engage in direct war that wins their islamic texts tell them to spread Sharia by soft-jihad a new war by deception and immigration.
I have given you the analogy....if I offered you a bowl of candy sweets, Jelly Beans or M&M's chocolate confectionery but I told you 1 in 10 of these is poison, it has for example anthrax inside or is radioactive...would you take them? Of course you would not.
Perhaps both Trump and Carter had come to some kind of similar conclusion.
Some people have successfully went to war against islamic mohammedans, some have fought them with mixed results while others have utterly failed. Way back in year 1801 with far less technology available, Thomas Jefferson, some Swedish King named Gustav Adolf, the State of Sicily, others from the United States James Madison, Richard Dale, Richard Morris, William Eaton thought the USA should wage a war to protect its people and ships from islamic attacks. Thomas Jefferson however had studied islamic texts and he was preparing himself for the types of bandits, terrorists, slavers and pirate kingdoms, North African jihadi states he would be engaging combat with.
However when you see the rise of terror groups in Afghanistan and what the Taliban are doing to people today you might wonder if parts of the world have changed much? What would happen if a group of people started to elevate cult leaders or militarist bandit war men to 'godhood' levels? They build temples and pray to Napoleon for example, Sargon of Akkad, Attila the Hun, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ivan the Terrible "Ivan Grozny", Churchill, Otto von Bismarck, Douglas MacArthur, Patton, maybe Stalin or Hirohito or 'Hitler' it seems unreasonable to elevate men as gods to pray to....especially if these men have been criminal or have engaged in war crime, but that is what happened islamism, he did not speak to a burning bush, he did not part the seas as Moses, he did not preach wisdom and peace as Buddha he did not do Miracles as Jesus, the person who founded islam he was an ordinary man good at looting, murdering villages, stealing booty, raping and enslaving and this bandit warlord he has been elevated by islamics as a god-ish person you can not offend according to them. For some reason it is offensive to call your child Hitler and with good reason but NOT offense to name your child mahommed, to name your kid after a mass murdering slaver and pedophile who founded islamism. Mohammed himself was unsure if he spoke to an angel in fact he believed he himself was mentally unwell, perhaps visited by devils not angels, perhaps djinn or demonic possessed, in modern times some have discussed the man who founded islam as having a mental condition, fits and visions, some wondered did he have epilepsy?
Today People can believe all kinds of crazy stuff, very young people the kids for example can believe the Tooth Fairy, Darth Vader or Barbie or Santa Claus or Spider-Man or Wonder Woman, Mickey Mouse, and Superman are real, some people might believe in some imaginary sky fairy god in the clouds. Only in islam do you see grown adults trained in mass murder willing to carry out widespread mass murder for this jihadist pedophile war entity Al-Lah creature described in their so-called 'holy' islamic texts. Only in islam today will you see grown men go on a rampage and murder cartoonists in the name of islam, they will bomb pop concerts because something might have offended the ghost of a pedophile terrorist named Mahomet or coming in as immigrants to Europe they can mass murder civilians because of some speech that offended their demonic entity called Al-Lah, only this religion bombing and shooting up festivals in the name of some 6th Century 7th Century backward almost stone age like intolerant religion, a book the Quran or Koran which seems to be something of a perverted cult war manual masquerading as 'religion'.
Both left and right, liberal and conservative seen the issue with borders, both President Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to President Donald Trump's proposal to ban islamic jihad cultures from hostile, troubled, radical nations.
The proposed Trump travel ban was not in fact a 'Muslim Ban' it was stated as an act Protecting the Nation from Foreign Attack on the United States, while terrorism was rising in Afghanistan, Libya in collapse and a war against ISIS ongoing, they also banned travel from Nigeria which is not a majority muslim 'Sharia' nation...not yet anyways....Myanmar or Burma, Venezuela, North Korea. So it was not a 'Muslim Ban' many in the media tried to call the ban racist and claiming false ideas such as islamic is an 'Ethnic Race' when it is not, both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump thought the USA should secure its borders.
Offline
I believe this way of thinking started to change among some after the 911 attacks when four groups of men with outside help organized hijacker terrorist attacks and carried out within the USA, attacks by people inside the USA in an act of terror against the United States of America.
This seems to be spot on.
The tech is now 20+ years out-of-date.
Submarines are using even older as it battles tested tried and true.
there is theft, child abuse, human smuggling and group involved human trafficking, shipment of weaponry drugs and who knows how many terrorists on 'watch lists'
Sounds just like what is happening inside many cities and more of America and even that is not getting care of.
Utah’s new ‘Sovereignty Act’ sets up a process to overrule the federal government. But is it constitutional?
“Balancing power between state and federal sovereignty is an essential part of our constitutional system,” Gov. Cox said in a statement. “This legislation gives us another way to push back on federal overreach and maintain that balance.”
Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones.
Sucession by another name
Online
The judgment of cheating is coming to an end and with the loss of NY property he is resorting to other tricks to gain his riches to make use of to battle paying.
GoFundMe Responds to Calls To Shut Down Donald Trump Fundraiser
Immunity question seems to be rejected as
Supreme Court Faces Wave Of 14th Amendment Disqualification Cases
The fact is both candidates are unfit for office.
Donald Trump's cognitive decline 'is much more apparent than Biden's'
Donald Trump's cognitive decline worse than Joe Biden's due to 2 signs, professor says
So, much for the FBI not being politically motivated to create false statements as an Indictment Shatters GOP Informant’s Credibility, Undermining Trump’s Impeachment Agenda
Online
Immunity question seems to be rejected as
Supreme Court Faces Wave Of 14th Amendment Disqualification CasesThe fact is both candidates are unfit for office.
Donald Trump's cognitive decline 'is much more apparent than Biden's'
Both candidates are over 15 years past the standard retirement age. There is a reason why most people retire by age 65, if not sooner. It isn't just a case of looking older and feeling more tired. By age 80, vascular deterioration results in significant declines in cognition. That is a problem given the demands of this particular job. The right candidate isn't going to be a young man with limited life experience. But he cannot be so old that mental deterioration has set in. Ages 45 - 65 would appear to be the magic window. Even if one ignores the personality faults of both men, there is the simple issue of compentance due to age related deterioration.
Most of Biden's appearances have been cringeworthy. He appears to be showing signs of advanced vascular dementia. He even used that as a defence to avoid culpability for mishandling classified information. That may have kept him out of prison, but it should burn any chance of him standing again as president in a sane world. It is difficult to see how this man can use mental incompetance as a defence against a crime and claim that he is still capable of doing one of the worlds most demanding jobs. Surely, both cannot be true?
Last edited by Calliban (2024-02-19 11:15:39)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Canada's once prestigious colleges and mental health care institutions make a mockery of themselves:
Ontario College of Psychologists Have Asked Me to Re-Educate Jordan Peterson! (THE SAAD TRUTH_1594)
Offline
Canada's once prestigious colleges and mental health care institutions make a mockery of themselves:
Ontario College of Psychologists Have Asked Me to Re-Educate Jordan Peterson! (THE SAAD TRUTH_1594)
It is pathetic and even the man they have asked to do the 'reeducating' thinks it is pathetic and absurd. One of the greatest and most celebrated psychologists of our age told that he needs to be reeducated because the halfmen running the accrediting body in Canada don't like his politics. Some 20 years ago, these organisations were already left leaning, but there were enough adults left in them for sanity to prevail. Now the adults are retired, leaving the kidults to run the show. Peterson could approach another accrediting body, maybe in the US, Mexico or somewhere else. He doesn't have to bow down before these Canadian halfwits. He is accomplished enough to just walk away from them and get accreditation elsewhere.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Some people here need to listen to this conversation for an explanation to the last link I posted about Dr Peterson:
Eric Weinstein - Why Does The Modern World Make No Sense? (4K)
It's not fun and it's not pretty, but the message needs to be listened to.
I agree that Dr Peterson shouldn't humiliate himself or his profession by trying to appease these mental midgets at university and government that he's being insulted by. They're not fit to shine Dr Peterson's shoes, much less judge him.
Eric Weinstein is stating exactly what the problem is and what needs to be done to repair the damage done, but I'm not sure he's actually willing to do it. I would hope that he is, though.
Offline