ron.reagan said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The Milley legacy….

---

If you pay people to stay at home and reproduce why would they go to the military? If you pay for people to go to college why would they go to the military? If the more intelligent population can make 5x WFH at a tech company, why would they go to the military? If you give everyone free healthcare why would they go to the military?

Regardless of the argument that society should or should not be providing these services to the general population there is no argument that it takes away incentives to enlist.

---

If you're a white male why would you join the military? This regime hates you and wants to emasculate you. Then they want to ship you off to Ukraine or wherever to fight some for proift war. The days of following your Dad or grandad into military service are over.

---

They literally don't want to ship you to Ukraine. They literally used to do that **** in the days of dad and grandad.

---

YOu should encourage your son to join.

Thank you for your service to our country Old Guy and Fubar

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

Really good post

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Thank you for your service to our country Old Guy and Fubar

---

Thank you. It was an honor to serve. Thank you for supporting those who serve today.

This is a weird thread.

Old Guy said:

---

I have tried to figure out why people like Fauci, Millie, Garland, get trashed when their peers praise their total career over all the years they have served.

The trashers come from the same ilk that sit in their Deacons meeting and town halls in church and never breathe a word because people might suspect they have a set of balls.

But then again the real reason is their cult leader has told them what to say. I have talked to cult followers all over the nation and they say the same thing. I can only guess that their source is instructing them weekly or monthly what to say.

BU '70
USAF 64 to 68

Underlying the cult leader is the theme HATE!

---

You got it. Trying to reach win-wins or make decisions that support peace are viewed as weakness today. Seems like there are no adults left in leadership and ones that do stay get trashed.

My view is people like Fauci, Millie, Garland get praised from those that know their careers. Those trashing only see sound-bites on TV and are forming opinions based on whack-job blogs or the 30 second opinion piece they see on Newsmax.

People that have not had to deliver when faced with conflicting orders/directions, have no idea what these people accomplished. Running your own business, making your own decisions is so much more clear cut than large organization leadership or project development. It is so much simpler when you get to make the decisions and just go. Building coalitions is a nightmare. So, I tip my hat to those that spent their lives doing it. You think Millie likes ALL the directives he had to back? Of course not, but you get it done the best way you can and limit damage.

Armchair generals.

fubar said:

---

Wow. Just ... wow.

---

It's amazing how many people claim to love America but hate Americans.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

fubar said:

---

Wow. Just ... wow.

---

It's amazing how many people claim to love America but hate Americans.

---

Well, Mitch...

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

So the problem was we didn't kill enough people in Afghanistan?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

Really good post

---

When your bar is that low for existential threat then I have no issue with only going to war under these conditions. I'm a bit old fashion and tie existential with existence.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

Really good post

---

When your bar is that low for existential threat then I have no issue with only going to war under these conditions. I'm a bit old fashion and tie existential with existence.

---

There are different level of existence. If your threshold is physical attack on the Homeland the US can lose a lot without that happening.

Shipping/Trade Routes?
Trade agreements?
Access to materials?
Access to Space?
Access to the Arctic/Antarctic?
Cyber?
Not to even get into the Administrative relationships that go into treaties, ports, contracts?

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

Really good post

---

When your bar is that low for existential threat then I have no issue with only going to war under these conditions. I'm a bit old fashion and tie existential with existence.

---

There are different level of existence. If your threshold is physical attack on the Homeland the US can lose a lot without that happening.

Shipping/Trade Routes?
Trade agreements?
Access to materials?
Access to Space?
Access to the Arctic/Antarctic?
Cyber?
Not to even get into the Administrative relationships that go into treaties, ports, contracts?

---

On of the most interesting things is that the USA (if you include Canada and Mexico) is basically a large Autarky

It is (or can be) completely self sustaining.

We have the most farmland on earth....and for various climate reasons....its actually the best.

The Midwest farm belt is the most successful farming region one earth....with just the right amount of winter to kill the bugs/fungi but with a long warm growing season. And connected by the best water ways on earth.

Mississippi River, with its major tributaries an area of approximately 1.2 million square miles...most of it easily accessed by boat and can be used for shipping goods.

The USA could feed itself (and Canada/Mexico) forever.




When it comes to natural resources the USA is usually number 2 on the global list. And right behind it is usually Canada.

United States
[Key resources: Copper, oil, natural gas, timber, and gold
The net worth of resources: $45+ trillion
The United States is rich in natural resources, including land, water, oil, and coal, and has a diverse population.]

Canada
[Key resources: Oil, natural gas, timber, uranium, and phosphate
Net worth of resources: $33+ trillion
Canada has abundant natural resources which contribute significantly to its economy. In 2021, energy sources made up the majority (53%) of Canada's natural wealth, followed by minerals (28%) and timber (19%). The value of these reserves increased by 149% in 2021 due to higher crude oil and mineral prices.
Canada's petroleum reserves are the third-largest in the world, with most of its oil being produced in Alberta. Additionally, the country has the fifth-largest coal reserves. ]

Mexico
[ Mexico is among the world's largest producers of oil, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas and wood. Other minerals, such as mercury, cadmium, antimony, manganese, iron and coal are also found in abundance]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

With regards to war, I would offer that the experience of an air force pilot - even one who was shot down - is fundamentally different than that of a guy with a combat infantry badge. There's an incident where a couple of A10 drivers hit a ranger squad after getting clearance from a controller. This isn't a TV show. Wars should only be response to existential threats to our nation, not to further political ambitions. On this account, McCain was a moral failure.

---

Forget Hitler, you wouldn't even respond to Pearl Harbor with that logic

---

When a foreign power bombs our soil, it's an existential threat.

Pearl Harbor required a military response.

So did Afghanistan.

In fact, after 9-11 I would have hit Afghanistan in a way it had never been hit before.

When you go to war, declare it properly, and fight to win. Total war. No winning hearts and minds.

That's precisely why it is to be avoided and these neocon games are stupid and silly.

The threshold for us to fight - and the commitment with which we do in the rare event it becomes necessary both need to be raised.

---

Really good post

---

When your bar is that low for existential threat then I have no issue with only going to war under these conditions. I'm a bit old fashion and tie existential with existence.

---

There are different level of existence. If your threshold is physical attack on the Homeland the US can lose a lot without that happening.

Shipping/Trade Routes?
Trade agreements?
Access to materials?
Access to Space?
Access to the Arctic/Antarctic?
Cyber?
Not to even get into the Administrative relationships that go into treaties, ports, contracts?

---

On of the most interesting things is that the USA (if you include Canada and Mexico) is basically a large Autarky

It is (or can be) completely self sustaining.

We have the most farmland on earth....and for various climate reasons....its actually the best.

The Midwest farm belt is the most successful farming region one earth....with just the right amount of winter to kill the bugs/fungi but with a long warm growing season. And connected by the best water ways on earth.

Mississippi River, with its major tributaries an area of approximately 1.2 million square miles...most of it easily accessed by boat and can be used for shipping goods.

The USA could feed itself (and Canada/Mexico) forever.




When it comes to natural resources the USA is usually number 2 on the global list. And right behind it is usually Canada.

United States
[Key resources: Copper, oil, natural gas, timber, and gold
The net worth of resources: $45+ trillion
The United States is rich in natural resources, including land, water, oil, and coal, and has a diverse population.]

Canada
[Key resources: Oil, natural gas, timber, uranium, and phosphate
Net worth of resources: $33+ trillion
Canada has abundant natural resources which contribute significantly to its economy. In 2021, energy sources made up the majority (53%) of Canada's natural wealth, followed by minerals (28%) and timber (19%). The value of these reserves increased by 149% in 2021 due to higher crude oil and mineral prices.
Canada's petroleum reserves are the third-largest in the world, with most of its oil being produced in Alberta. Additionally, the country has the fifth-largest coal reserves. ]

Mexico
[ Mexico is among the world's largest producers of oil, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas and wood. Other minerals, such as mercury, cadmium, antimony, manganese, iron and coal are also found in abundance]

---

I agree on Mexico. I never understood why we didn't invest in Mexico like China.

https://t.co/lP4B9kJoMb

US Army forcing hundreds of NCOs to go to recruiting school on 6 day notice. They're vastly short on recruiting goals but also vastly short on recruiters, they were firing them all for not making quotas which is because nobody wants to join.

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) November 2, 2023

Doc Holliday said:

---

Old Guy said:

---

I have tried to figure out why people like Fauci, Millie, Garland, get trashed when their peers praise their total career over all the years they have served.

The trashers come from the same ilk that sit in their Deacons meeting and town halls in church and never breathe a word because people might suspect they have a set of balls.

But then again the real reason is their cult leader has told them what to say. I have talked to cult followers all over the nation and they say the same thing. I can only guess that their source is instructing them weekly or monthly what to say.

BU '70
USAF 64 to 68

Underlying the cult leader is the theme HATE!

---

$33T in debt, record inflation, catastrophic decline in culture, radical leftism in media, academia and state/federal bodies etc. can be blamed heavily on career bureaucrats and their politician peers...and you think they're the good guys.

If these people were who you think they are, then the results would speak for themselves. The results prove incompetence, stupidity and corruption. You can't simultaneously praise them with the results they've delivered without being wrong.

See this is what's wrong with America. The status quo is worshipped by people like you. It is elementary to say "these people are praised by their peers" and that be good enough to not question their behavior or power.

You don't hate because you don't know who the enemy is. You're nothing like our forefathers who knew consolidated power is a never ending threat.

---

Then why did they gather to form a more powerful central government?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Old Guy said:

---

I have tried to figure out why people like Fauci, Millie, Garland, get trashed when their peers praise their total career over all the years they have served.

The trashers come from the same ilk that sit in their Deacons meeting and town halls in church and never breathe a word because people might suspect they have a set of balls.

But then again the real reason is their cult leader has told them what to say. I have talked to cult followers all over the nation and they say the same thing. I can only guess that their source is instructing them weekly or monthly what to say.

BU '70
USAF 64 to 68

Underlying the cult leader is the theme HATE!

---

$33T in debt, record inflation, catastrophic decline in culture, radical leftism in media, academia and state/federal bodies etc. can be blamed heavily on career bureaucrats and their politician peers...and you think they're the good guys.

If these people were who you think they are, then the results would speak for themselves. The results prove incompetence, stupidity and corruption. You can't simultaneously praise them with the results they've delivered without being wrong.

See this is what's wrong with America. The status quo is worshipped by people like you. It is elementary to say "these people are praised by their peers" and that be good enough to not question their behavior or power.

You don't hate because you don't know who the enemy is. You're nothing like our forefathers who knew consolidated power is a never ending threat.

---

Then why did they gather to form a more powerful central government?

---

To be fair…a very limited central government with a narrow and defined set of powers enumerated in a written Constitution


[Madison served in Congress under the Articles of Confederation, ratified March 1, 1781. It was a voluntary association of states. Congress depended on voluntary contributions, not taxes. If people in a particular state didn't approve what Congress was doing, they kept their money, and that was that. Although states squabbled with each other, they were bit players in world politics…Amending the Articles required unanimous consent... Voluntary cooperation worked well enough that the states defeated Britain, the world's mightiest naval power, and they negotiated tremendous territorial concessions.

Madison, however, was frustrated at what he considered the irresponsible behavior of states. He objected to their trade wars and continued paper money inflation- a result of Revolutionary War costs. Devious New Englanders tried to arrange a monopoly on codfish sales to Spain in exchange for giving up American rights on the Mississippi River, which would have devastated people in the Kentucky territory. Madison believed things would be better if Congress could function as a more centralized government.

The Constitution attempted to limit the power of central government through intricate checks and balances. A key principle was separation of powers: those who make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws should be substantially independent and capable of limiting each other's power. The two houses of Congress provide a check on each other. The President can veto legislation, but he can be overruled by a two-thirds majority in both houses. The judiciary can strike down laws considered unconstitutional. Proposed amendments become part of the Constitution only when approved by two-thirds of Congress and by legislatures in three-quarters of the states.]

Check out the responses. Once they've pushed wokeness they can't undo it. This is like Budweiser all over again but this is the US ARMY. They have made such a colossal mistake https://t.co/BSadjyRibX

— Cyberpunk Sense 👑 (@napoleon21st) November 8, 2023

ron.reagan said:

---

Here is a war hero that saw "real" combat with an opinion on one of the leaders of your cult:

---

definitely a war hero. Not a very strong politician though.

Who the @USArmy praises for their calling, vs who the US Army calls up: https://t.co/QW9cNgBiBq pic.twitter.com/bSnq4bc7s4

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) November 7, 2023

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Old Guy said:

---

I have tried to figure out why people like Fauci, Millie, Garland, get trashed when their peers praise their total career over all the years they have served.

The trashers come from the same ilk that sit in their Deacons meeting and town halls in church and never breathe a word because people might suspect they have a set of balls.

But then again the real reason is their cult leader has told them what to say. I have talked to cult followers all over the nation and they say the same thing. I can only guess that their source is instructing them weekly or monthly what to say.

BU '70
USAF 64 to 68

Underlying the cult leader is the theme HATE!

---

$33T in debt, record inflation, catastrophic decline in culture, radical leftism in media, academia and state/federal bodies etc. can be blamed heavily on career bureaucrats and their politician peers...and you think they're the good guys.

If these people were who you think they are, then the results would speak for themselves. The results prove incompetence, stupidity and corruption. You can't simultaneously praise them with the results they've delivered without being wrong.

See this is what's wrong with America. The status quo is worshipped by people like you. It is elementary to say "these people are praised by their peers" and that be good enough to not question their behavior or power.

You don't hate because you don't know who the enemy is. You're nothing like our forefathers who knew consolidated power is a never ending threat.

---

Then why did they gather to form a more powerful central government?

---

They didn't.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Old Guy said:

---

I have tried to figure out why people like Fauci, Millie, Garland, get trashed when their peers praise their total career over all the years they have served.

The trashers come from the same ilk that sit in their Deacons meeting and town halls in church and never breathe a word because people might suspect they have a set of balls.

But then again the real reason is their cult leader has told them what to say. I have talked to cult followers all over the nation and they say the same thing. I can only guess that their source is instructing them weekly or monthly what to say.

BU '70
USAF 64 to 68

Underlying the cult leader is the theme HATE!

---

$33T in debt, record inflation, catastrophic decline in culture, radical leftism in media, academia and state/federal bodies etc. can be blamed heavily on career bureaucrats and their politician peers...and you think they're the good guys.

If these people were who you think they are, then the results would speak for themselves. The results prove incompetence, stupidity and corruption. You can't simultaneously praise them with the results they've delivered without being wrong.

See this is what's wrong with America. The status quo is worshipped by people like you. It is elementary to say "these people are praised by their peers" and that be good enough to not question their behavior or power.

You don't hate because you don't know who the enemy is. You're nothing like our forefathers who knew consolidated power is a never ending threat.

---

Then why did they gather to form a more powerful central government?

---

They didn't.

---

Fantasy history suits you well.

It's a mystery https://t.co/N2nrr4IZEJ pic.twitter.com/F70DV3cKJm

— Battle Beagle (@HarmlessYardDog) November 11, 2023