ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

A vote for Hillary

Is a vote for World War III. Literally.
On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the United States into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.

Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and “safe zones” on the ground to protect non-combatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the United States into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.

"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.

"You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.
It's good to see Donald Trump pointing out that Hillary will, indubitably, order the US armed forces into war with Russia. However, the real issue isn't the proxy war in Syria, but rather, the provocative encroachments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

The reason Hillary will start WWIII is because she will try to expand NATO to cover Ukraine, which Russia simply will not permit.

Labels: ,

118 Comments:

Blogger Robert Divinity October 26, 2016 2:26 PM  

Hillary will start WWIII because she was prepaid to do it.

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 26, 2016 2:30 PM  

This is a big issue that is receiving little press. Most Americans don't care about Ukraine or Syria, they don't want to start a war with a nuclear power over something they don't care about. Hillary will play the "it's for the children" card but most people I know haven't even seen the photo she is referring to or have already forgotten it.

Blogger FALPhil October 26, 2016 2:32 PM  

Yeah, this is what I have been telling all the Hillary promoters here in Canada - if Hillary wins, Canadians will die. But, they don't get it. The Canadian news is extremely filtered, much more so that the MSM in the USA.

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 26, 2016 2:34 PM  

She would have more success showing the Syrians torturing puppies. For that matter Trump should get his hands on a video of Muslims doing what they do to dogs. Then voice over that Hillary wants to bring those people here to torture our dogs. It would lock up the single women vote.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 26, 2016 2:35 PM  

Hillary Clinton won't start World War III, she'll blunder into it. The Democrats have NEVER been good on national security policy, and have been going downhill for the last hundred years.

No, it won't go nuclear, but the U.S. is in no shape to fight another major war. Our military has been rode hard and put up wet for over 20 years, it needs a chance to rebuild.

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 2:37 PM  

Sometimes you've got to risk main street going up in an atomic conflagration if you're going to deliver pipelines or expand globalist world orders.

And yeh it sucks if you're on main street but really, an atomic bomb - or even just a collapse of infrastructure following a cyber attack or a good old fashioned ship rigged to explode in San Pedro or Port Elizabeth - would be good for the economy long term. Just THINK about all those broke windows!

Blogger OGRE October 26, 2016 2:40 PM  

That type of war could easily go nuclear.

Its basic game theory, prisoner's dilemma type stuff. The second one side thinks the other might launch, then they need to preemptively launch. Why risk annihilation if you can prevent it? The scenario always has been and always will be Whoever launches first wins.

Blogger Sevron October 26, 2016 2:40 PM  

The only way it doesn't go nuclear is if Russia kicks our ass quickly and we back off. When we start to win, or this starts to drag out longer than Russia can afford to let it, they will drop nukes. There is no credible scenario other than the first where Russia will not deploy nukes.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 October 26, 2016 2:44 PM  

What troops does she plan on using to fight WW3?

Only about 55% of 15-24 year olds are non-hispanic white. And probably 75% of those are from families that consider her a traitorous snake. And the other 25% are special snowflakes.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 26, 2016 2:49 PM  

Syria does seem to be headed into, "some damn fool thing in the Balkins," territory.

I just wish there was something that was identifiable as an objective. When W was in office, as stupid as the objective was, at least it existed.

Now there isn't even that.

American foreign policy exists in a fever dream at this point.

Anonymous pelt October 26, 2016 2:52 PM  

@9 The 45% are mostly from low-IQ populations, too. Average African-American IQ is 85; average Mexican IQ is 88, etc. A diversity military is not a first-world military. This is yet ANOTHER example of how (((they))) need us, but we don't need them.

Anonymous FP October 26, 2016 2:53 PM  

New Veritas/O'Keefe video is out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBrZItwVy4

Anonymous WinstonWebb October 26, 2016 2:55 PM  

What troops does she plan on using to fight WW3?

The same troops all tyrants use: conscripts.

Methinks she'll forget all about her dedication to gender equality once the draft starts.

Anonymous Desert Rat October 26, 2016 3:01 PM  

"Hillary Clinton won't start World War III, she'll blunder into it."

I suspect this is right. This woman has demonstrated one thing clearly over the course of her time in the public eye: she is amazingly incompetent. I cannot think of a single thing that she has not screwed up.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 3:02 PM  

Trump is wisely focusing on the Arab war as the kindle that starts WWIII. Americans are war-weary, but Americans are especially war-weary of fighting for "freedom of Arabs/Muslims."

Blogger Nick S October 26, 2016 3:03 PM  

Women who find themselves in charge of a bunch of men often display symptoms of a Napoleon complex. It's not PC, but it's true and it's potentially dangerous.

Anonymous patrick kelly October 26, 2016 3:06 PM  

Dude, stop harshing my mellow.

Anonymous An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents October 26, 2016 3:07 PM  

What troops does she plan on using to fight WW3?


Drones, of one sort or another.

Why war?

Because "come together in wartime!" because "Merika, YEAH!' because "end economic depression" because "Peace in Middle East" because she can.

Because her masters want it.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents October 26, 2016 3:09 PM  

@16
Women who find themselves in charge of a bunch of men often display symptoms of a Napoleon complex. It's not PC, but it's true and it's potentially dangerous.

Women in charge of men try to become men. Women are lousy at actually being men because XX is not XY and blank slate is a fallacy. So women trying to be men always overact, often over-react, and that can lead to disaster.

Like war.

Blogger OGRE October 26, 2016 3:10 PM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:

I just wish there was something that was identifiable as an objective. When W was in office, as stupid as the objective was, at least it existed.



War IS the objective.

Why else have we been poking Russia in the eye for the past 8 years? There are many interests in this country and abroad that would be very happy for a war to develop between Russia and the US. There are those that see it as an opportunity for financial gain. There are others that see it as a means of obtaining political power. If the people are focused on the 'enemy' without, they won't be looking very hard at the enemy within.

A third world war sets the stage for globalists to consolidate power and set up the system they have been working so hard to achieve.

And Hillary represents all those interests. They are the ones pulling her strings and propping her up.

Blogger Sevron October 26, 2016 3:11 PM  

Her masters need a war, badly, because they have about $200,000,000 in unfounded liabilities they can't pay for, which is all promised free shit for people. When the people don't get it, they historically riot and hang the elite and go full-on Civil War. The best way for the elite to head that off at the pass is to gin up a destructive war outside the empire that gets a lot of people killed. Like, and I'm just spitballing here, a war with a nuclear power that will definitely use them.

Blogger Sevron October 26, 2016 3:11 PM  

Sorry, should be $200,000,000,000.

Anonymous Stephen J. October 26, 2016 3:12 PM  

Out of curiosity, Vox, what's your opinion on the necessity/viability of NATO in the post-Soviet geopolitical environment?

Blogger cheddarman October 26, 2016 3:17 PM  

Russia will back down because Putin is a cowardly patriarch and Hillary is a fearless warrior woman in command of an invincible army of multicultural rainbow warriors, all backed by the power and might of Goldman-Sachs, she thinks to herself.

Blogger pyrrhus October 26, 2016 3:17 PM  

@20 The "objective" of this insanity is military-industrial profits and power. A subsidiary objective is to distract the western populace from disastrous domestic policies.
Of course, without an enemy, however fictitious, NATO has no reason to exist....

Blogger tz October 26, 2016 3:17 PM  

I think Trump is the proper medicine for the DC - Wall Street corruption machine, but it could also be cauterized by nuking them. The Atlantic would have some fallout, but what is the downside?
Well, the left coast will still be there, so I hope Putin has some conventional forces.

Blogger LonestarWhacko October 26, 2016 3:18 PM  

Brain damaged or Alcoholic? Point is, she has no authority from the people. She's a criminal, and a liar to boot. Who would follow her?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 26, 2016 3:18 PM  

It seems like Hillary cannot respond to this and I would bet there's solid evidence that war with Russia is in some emails of hers and Obama's.

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 3:18 PM  

Methinks she'll forget all about her dedication to gender equality once the draft starts.

As will 99% of lady soldiers, most of the male population, and every grandparent. But hey, we turned the army into a vehicle for gibs and social justice in the interim, so all good!

Other ideas that will be war tested:
- The Internet of Things
- Immigrants R Real Americans
- There is NO PLACE for landmines
- Wouldn't it be great if Schools had a Bajillion dollars and the Air Force had to hold bake sales?

Blogger pyrrhus October 26, 2016 3:19 PM  

@24 If we could hand the (((bankers))) rifles and send them into combat, it might be a worthwhile, if very short, war....

Blogger tz October 26, 2016 3:19 PM  

I know what Marx said about Capitalists selling rope, but didn't Clinton arrange for Russia to buy 20% of our Uranium?

Anonymous JI October 26, 2016 3:19 PM  

Meh, she's not going to start WWIII. That strikes me as hyperbole. I agree that she'll push and push until there are consequences, but even she does not want to die in a nuclear fireball. And, more importantly, neither do her puppet-masters.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 26, 2016 3:20 PM  

At the risk of confusing myself:

This is a dialectic observation in a (thanks to the TV) rhetorical war.

I submit that except for Amish people, everyone in the USA now was raised on the TV Tit. It's all they suckled for the last 50 years.

TV is a web of nothing but "stories," AKA Tall Tales, mythology and propaganda narratives. It short-circuits the higher brain centers (such as they exist in most people) and is a medium tailor-made for rhetorical manipulation of minds.

Imagine if TV had existed for 50 years prior to 1914. People in France, the UK and most of Europe would be glue to their sets....

...watching their version of Oprah....

...as the Guns of August began throwing shells in their midst.

I think we stand today at the brink of exactly the same precipice as in 1913(ish), only with consequences that dwarf the measly 40 million corpses produced by WW 1, and Megyn Kelly wants to talk about pussy-grabbing while ABCNNBCBS et al shake the bushes (wink!) for women who think they were groped 35 years ago.

Truly, we're all David Ruenzel or Amy Biehl now.

Anonymous Tipsy October 26, 2016 3:21 PM  

From what I understand, NATO made a number of promises to Russia that it broke with regard to its expansion. Those promises it broke. Russia retaliates by playing hardball. Why is this unexpected?

Still, I'm a bit muddled over the nice-nice between China and Russia. Shouldn't a demographically collapsing Russia be concerned with China's nascent territorial claims to the Russian Far East?

Blogger tz October 26, 2016 3:23 PM  

@27 - and I think Trump will have the mandate of heaven as well as most of the American people.

If Hillary succeeds, there will be hell to pay including fire.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 26, 2016 3:23 PM  

@32 You grossly underestimate the domino effect of stupid alliances and even stupider (and venal) politicians.

NO ONE in Europe wanted war in 1914. Yet war they got. Does anyone alive today have the imagination to visualize the stalemate of trench warfare in the age of the atomic bomb?

I lack that nightmare vision, yet know that no one will break the "everybody loses" stalemate of a nuclear war without Martians landing to stand in for Wilson's 1917 folly.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 3:25 PM  

Why else have we been poking Russia in the eye for the past 8 years?

I wish our foreign policy had been that coherent during the last eight years. I watch foreign policy very, very closely, because my job has been related to it for half my life and almost all of my entire adult life.

Obama’s policies have been more like a blindfolded man swinging wildly in a room full of people with brief intermissions to grope random genitals. There’s no rhyme or reason to this joker’s policies. A straight Marxist would at least tack consistently one direction. He’s clearly allowing himself to be swayed month to month and year to year by an unstable body of influencers.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 26, 2016 3:26 PM  

@ Tipsy, The promise was that NATO would not be moved east. It was, right to Russia's doorstep, thanks to the Bush/Clinton/Obama cabal.

It is far from unthinkable that Russians would rather take their chances with an exchange of ICBM's rather than become another vassal territory like Europe. As I understand it, Russians have a very, very long history of not wanting to be someone else's bitch.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 3:27 PM  

If we could hand the (((bankers))) rifles and send them into combat, it might be a worthwhile, if very short, war....

We used to joke that the Saudis would defend Mecca to the very last Pakistani.

Decades later, it seems we’ve also been duped into fighting (((someone))) else’s war(s).

Blogger jandolin October 26, 2016 3:27 PM  

Trump missed his chance to destroy warmonger Hillary at the debate. Hillary did not give a straight answer to Chris Wallace's question about a no-fly zone in Syria. Trump could have knocked out Hillary bey pointing out that a no-fly zone in Syria could escalate into a nuclear war with Russia.

Blogger Ransom Smith October 26, 2016 3:31 PM  

As an American who's great grandfather was in the Wermacht, the idea of a war in Russia scares the living daylights out of me.

But maybe that's just my natural German fear of the eastern front.

Blogger LonestarWhacko October 26, 2016 3:31 PM  

I hate to say it, but Democrats don't believe she'll start a war. Slow motion train wreck.

Anonymous Ain October 26, 2016 3:36 PM  

"Because "come together in wartime!" because "Merika, YEAH!' "

This is it. They're already putting it into the public's head that discontents must be Russian agents.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 26, 2016 3:39 PM  

@21 For the life of me I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to think that a nuclear exchange with Russia will leave anything useful over which to rule.

Only people who have absolutely ZERO idea from where our modern, comfortable lifestyles arise could imagine that a nuclear war would not send lifestyles and life EXPECTANCIES back to below those of the 1800's.

Phones? Forget it. Radio? made by whom? Fruits shipped in from...where? Across what roads? It is absurd...like thinking that Germany could weather a few years of WW2 and, when it's over, just dig out of the bunkers and go back to the office or factory.

I can't decide if our "elites" watch too much TV or too little. Either way, they seem utterly disconnected from reality as it actually is.

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 3:39 PM  

@34

Both have reason to be concerned about a American backed globalist hegemon.

Furthermore, China sees SE Asia and the Pacific as its rightful sphere that has been occupied by the United States. Supporting Russia - not necessarily militarily - means two of its largest rivals in a war half a world away...

Duterte del Muerte has already decided that he doesn't plan on his nation being a US military base within reach of Vladivostok. It'll spread from there.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 26, 2016 3:47 PM  

JI wrote:Meh, she's not going to start WWIII. That strikes me as hyperbole. I agree that she'll push and push until there are consequences, but even she does not want to die in a nuclear fireball. And, more importantly, neither do her puppet-masters.

Do her puppet masters believe they would die in a nuclear fireball? Or do they believe only useless eaters like you and I will die? If they think a nuclear war will carry off you and I, and leave them and their loyal servants, they might favor a nuclear war.

cheddarman wrote:Russia will back down because Putin is a cowardly patriarch and Hillary is a fearless warrior woman ... she thinks to herself.

Liberals lie, especially to themselves. How far wrong can a crazy, brain-damaged cat lady go? Nuclear wrong, that's how far.

Sevron wrote:The only way it doesn't go nuclear is if Russia kicks our ass quickly and we back off.

If Russia sees the war as threatening the Motherland, how could they possibly not go nuclear? They are prepared to win a nuclear war, perhaps with fewer casualties than they absorbed in WWII.

Blogger IreneAthena October 26, 2016 3:58 PM  

In person and on Facebook I present myself as a Christian Anarchist (Greg Boyd), because genuine followers of Christ can be deluded about foreign policy. I'm not into lamb-damning.

But I'm getting close to coming out publicly as "pro-Trump" only because victory for him will buy a little more time for cooler heads to work things out with Russia than we'll have with Hawkish Hill as POTUS. She is burning every diplomatic bridge between herself with Putin. I've already started using--when I'm addressing peace-loving but Hillary-deluded Democrats who post continually about the evils of Assad and his Russian supporters-- material that opens with compassion for Syrians, rather than overt Hillary-bashing as a vehicle for a more in-depth analysis of what Clinton's doomed-to-fail foreign policy objectives for Syria really are.

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 3:59 PM  

@37

That's crazy. You really expect us to believe that Russia would tolerate areas larger than most countries being turned into scorched earth, its cities reduced to rubble and its citizens starving... in order to avoid being conquered?

There is NO PRECEDENT WHATSOEVER for this kind of behavior by Russians.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 26, 2016 4:02 PM  

@23 Stephen J.:

I'm not Vox, but I'll take a swing at it.

Even stripped of its former Warsaw Pact auxiliaries and some former Soviet states, Russia is the most powerful country in Europe. And it's got a long history of aggressive behavior. Only an alliance structure can counterweight the Russians at this time.

The situation is similar to Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. France had been expansionist for 150 years, Europe had been at war for two decades...and after Napoleon's defeat, the other Great Powers allied themselves to counterweight France - because France was STILL the most powerful state in Europe.

NATO serves the same function. Unfortunately, this is not publicly discussed.

There's also the problem of the role of the United States in NATO. A strong case can be made that the Europeans have quite enough manpower, money, and technology to counterweight the Russians without our help. I personally agree with that case. On the other hand, the United States has historically taken the lead...and is unwilling to cede that leadership position.

It's an interesting argument, but the need to rebalance our force structure to a more mobile and maritime force capable of handling worldwide needs takes precedence over maintaining 100% dominance in Europe, in my view.

Blogger OGRE October 26, 2016 4:03 PM  

If you hadn't SHOUTED that last part I wouldn't have realized you were being sarcastic!

Blogger Geir Balderson October 26, 2016 4:04 PM  

I suppose the Anti-Christ could very easily be a Women? How devilish Satan plays with the World.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 26, 2016 4:05 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@21 For the life of me I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to think that a nuclear exchange with Russia will leave anything useful over which to rule.

You don't have to imagine it, just accept that they exist.

dc.sunsets wrote:Only people who have absolutely ZERO idea from where our modern, comfortable lifestyles arise could imagine that a nuclear war would not send lifestyles and life EXPECTANCIES back to below those of the 1800's.

Phones? Forget it. Radio? made by whom? Fruits shipped in from...where? Across what roads? It is absurd...like thinking that Germany could weather a few years of WW2 and, when it's over, just dig out of the bunkers and go back to the office or factory.


We could easily, trivially preserve 18th century technology and lifestyle. The elites did very well indeed in the 18th century. With minimal effort and preparation, we could preserve a late 19th-early 20th century level of industry. The elites were very comfortable indeed during that period.

Our current knowledge of public health amounts to wash your hands, boil your water, don't shit where you eat. That knowledge will last through a nuclear war, and so will 80% or more of the longer lifespan that comes with it.

Yes, we will still be able to make plows, radios, internal and external combustion engines, machine tools, even flying machines. They will be crude and expensive for a while, but they will be possible.

More to the point, the elites, who choose whether there will be a nuclear war, will be warm, dry and comfortable, and that's what really counts.

Anonymous Tipsy October 26, 2016 4:11 PM  

@38. Yep. BTW, can Trump walk the expansion back with concessions from Russia? Could, for example the Visegrad 4 + Slovenia + Croatia + Lithuania form a separate block, both militarily (replacing NATO) and economically (replacing the EU)?

There's enough cultural cohesiveness between these countries that it might work, and, as a rule, they're also not infected with the fashionable self loathing that is destroying Western Europe.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 26, 2016 4:12 PM  

Alexander wrote:@37

That's crazy. You really expect us to believe that Russia would tolerate areas larger than most countries being turned into scorched earth, its cities reduced to rubble and its citizens starving... in order to avoid being conquered?


That sounds like a pretty good description of the Russian experience in WWII. They did it before, and they can do it again.

Blogger Aziz P. October 26, 2016 4:13 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Tipsy October 26, 2016 4:21 PM  

@32 "She'll push and push and push" ...

... and then something will get out of control. What then?

Due to the heightened tensions in the cold war, America and Russia were pushing and pushing over the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the October 27th, 1962, two out of three Russian submariners voted to launch their nuclear tipped missiles in response to depth charges being deployed. If it weren't for contrary vote of Vasili Arkhipov, WWIII would have broken out. Is it worth it to take the same chances today?

War is a cliff that you stay a safe distance away from. Hillary would walk up to the edge and peer over on her tip-toes.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 4:23 PM  

Russia is the most powerful country in Europe.

We talked about this maybe a year or so ago during the Ukraine stuff.

Russia may have a large military, but

1) they don't have a military structured like Western militaries. They don't rely on NCOs like the US and other nations do. Take out the officer and you seriously fuck unit effectiveness.

2) the same thing that doomed every invader would doom Russia is they try to push too far. They don't have the logistics support to really project power. In truth few countries do. The US takes for granted feeding, arming, paying etc troops across the globe 24/7. Crisis in East Bumblefuck? Send in the Marines/82nd/SF. There’s not second thought, like, “Wait. How can we possibly feed/re-arm, support those troops thousands of miles from home?” We take it for granted because the US developed a robust logistics operation. It’s not perfect, but the amount of training the US puts into logistics and supply chain management is comparable to Fortune 500 companies.

3) Russians ground troops just aren't effective, man to man. Are they as bad as Africans? No. But they "won" the eatern fronts by sheer will to throw lives in front of bullets, not tactics. Modern Russian troops aren't much better. This isn't "Rah, rah, Merica!" It's the truth. We have a highly trained military. If an officer goes down, the NCOs can run a unit indefinitely until another officer arrives. Every corporal carries a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, so to speak.

===================

This isn't to say that Hillary won't antagonize or blunder her way into war and that, once in war, we won't lose too many men. We will lose many, many men in a war with Russia. However, we learned a heck of a lot about Russian/Soviet military during the 90s and what we learned didn't impress us.

Blogger Student in Blue October 26, 2016 4:25 PM  

@49. Napoleon 12pdr
Even stripped of its former Warsaw Pact auxiliaries and some former Soviet states, Russia is the most powerful country in Europe.

Just a nitpick, but Russia is not European.

Blogger S. Misanthrope October 26, 2016 4:26 PM  

I can't convince my foreign policy-obsessed friend on this point. He thinks Hillary is just pretending in order to appear hawkish and appeal to the right.

Anonymous Tipsy October 26, 2016 4:27 PM  

@56 Correction: torpedos not missiles.

Anonymous map October 26, 2016 4:29 PM  

Alexander,

Yes. Russia will tolerate that because they view America as an existential threat. They view America as attempting to dismember Russia and turn it into a satrapy. Most people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Furthermore, you are assuming that our nukes actually work. You think decades of anti-nuclear propaganda hasn't taken its toll? When was the last time a US nuke was actually tested, refurbished, replaced and the minutemen drilled? I doubt the arsenal is even ready for deployment.

Meanwhile, Russia has been actively observing US military operations for the last 15 years and upgrading their hardware to compensate, while we've been patting ourselves on the back for defeating goat herders. There will be no conventional US forces riding into Moscow like they did into Baghdad.

You are also forgetting how nukes will actually be deployed. I can see Russia deploying nukes tactically if Russian conventional forces get overwhelmed. They will do it because, in such a weakened state, Russia will be vulnerable to invasion so the tactical nukes will take that option off the table.

If the US responds with a nuclear strike here...then game over. The US will be incinerated. If it does not respond, then it will be permanently weakened and lose allies around the world. The US will be on permanent and inevitable decline, probably leading to a civil war, but it will never be able to project power again.

Russia will call every US bluff for to not do so means getting destroyed. The US will back away from the bluff because they think they will be able to impose enough domestic terrorism at home to prevent civil war from breaking out.

This is what is at stake with a Hillary Clinton as president.

Blogger jandolin October 26, 2016 4:30 PM  

The post leaves out the most important rationale for Hillary to provoke a confrontation with Russia. (((Neocons))) in the Hillary campaign are furious with Putin and Russia for intervening in Syria and blocking their plan to turn Syria into another Libya, a state unable to militarily challenge Israel.

Blogger Nobody In Particular October 26, 2016 4:31 PM  

Perhaps war is inevitable, despite the best intentions of people on both sides (but I'm not convinced of the good intent of either Putin or the Obama administration). In that case, I still wouldn't want Clinton to be president.
I hope that Trump proves to be an inspired leader, like Churchill or Clemenceau. At least he played one on TV. He doesn't need to know military strategy (nobody really knows how the next war will be fought, anyway). On the other hand, Clinton has never been called an inspired leader and has never played one on TV either.

Blogger Durandel Almiras October 26, 2016 4:31 PM  

I would think the nuking of DC, NYC, Chicago and LA would be a boon for the USA. Heck, might need more than that nuked just to be sure enough rabbits are truly dead.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 4:32 PM  

He thinks Hillary is just pretending in order to appear hawkish and appeal to the right.

If her actions as SecState didn't convince him, not sure what will. When she goes hawkish, he'll likely double down and say she was pushed into it because of circumstances.

Blogger Student in Blue October 26, 2016 4:33 PM  

@59. S. Misanthrope

Have you tried convincing your friend that the State department under Hillary and Obama has been pretty much spitting in Russia's eye this entire time, and it's not just a sudden change around election time?

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 4:47 PM  

@61

Tone is difficult to judge online. I was going for sarcastic (hence the ALL CAPS at the end) but I failed.

I am not interesting in getting in a game of nuclear chicken with Russia.

Blogger Alexander October 26, 2016 4:51 PM  

American idiots who want Hillary are bizarre. Asians in America (other than Chinese) who want Hillary force me to reconsider the high-IQ theory.

Unless they think that forced to commit on two fronts, America will take from ZOG to pay DMZ?

The joys of living in a state that's a mall attached to an airport that everyone thinks is their mercenary...

Anonymous map October 26, 2016 4:54 PM  

Anchorman,

Please all this talk of logistics and the effectiveness of NCO's is just that...talk. It has never been tested against a modern adversary, except in WWII. That was 70 years ago.

Again, we are fighting goatherders and weak nations. What happens when those logistics are bombed and missiled? What happens when you can't control the sky and your communications are jammed? When every Syrian soldier is carrying the Russia version of a Stinger missile? We have weapon systems designed by defense contractors and lobbyists that force them to be deployed because some ex-general got hired by a consulting firm. Have these weapons really been tested? Are they really immune to hacking, to massive stress due to overuse, to EMP's? We've been wargaming against backward people and we think that is good data when wargaming against Russia.

Do you people not remember when Russia was hitting targets in Syria from a destoyer in the Black Sea?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 26, 2016 4:57 PM  

At this point Clinton has made her position clear. So I say that anyone who votes for her bears a portion of the responsibility for any war there that she leads us to.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 26, 2016 4:59 PM  

Yeah, I would prefer that people hold off on that 'nuke Chicago' thing.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 26, 2016 5:02 PM  

It also isn't 1995 either. And the Soviets were still a potent and well armed force in the 1980s.

Blogger Noah B October 26, 2016 5:05 PM  

There were several points in both Gulf Wars when Saddam Hussein could have preemptively attacked or counterattacked with devastating effect, but didn't, probably due to the lack of sufficiently developed C4ISR. Russia isn't Iraq.

Blogger GFR October 26, 2016 5:06 PM  

Podesta said that he thought a nuclear weapon would be used in the middle east soon – he didn’t seem particularly horrified about it or concerned about the long-range implications, which means that they have already spent a lot of time thinking about this.
.
Bill clinton paid North Korea to NOT develop nuclear weapons - now they HAVE nuclear weapons and long range missiles.
.
Hillary clinton paid Iran to not develop nuclear weapons - now they will have nuclear weapons very soon, and intermediate range missiles.
.
Saudi Arabia paid for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons and they can take delivery of them at the time of their choosing. They already have intermediate range ballistic missiles from China. They have said that they developed this capability to protect themselves from Iran, NOT ISRAEL which has had nuclear weapons since before 1973.
.
Israel already has nuclear weapons as well as delivery systems - and they are scared to death of iran getting nuclear weapons. Iran has said that they will drive the jews into the sea and liberate islam’s holy places.
.
I think the democrats have realized that they can't pay countries run by crazy people to NOT build nuclear weapons. I think that the democrats have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons WILL be used in the middle east and that it is best if Israel uses them against Iran FIRST.
.
A decapitated Iran wouldn’t threaten Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or Israel.

Blogger OGRE October 26, 2016 5:07 PM  

Most Americans probably have no idea how close Syria is geographically to Russia. Aleppo is but 600 mi from Sevastopol. Thats like DC to Chicago.

From their perspective its as if we've turned the home two doors down into a crackhouse...and we want to shoot the nice homeowners when they try to clean it up.

Blogger Credo in unum Deum October 26, 2016 5:11 PM  

When Hillary starts the war with Russia I wonder if she will send Webster Hubbell's kid to the front lines.

Blogger frigger611 October 26, 2016 5:17 PM  

Good Lord, just saw the most amazing video for Trump, and narrated by Michael Moore. Yes, you read that right. So I feel a win is certainly possible.

Michael Moore gives a speech to obvious Dems/Hillary voters but turns them with some very simple observations. If you know primate body language, count the number of fingers rubbing on chins, a sign of pondering something deep, needing understanding.

Despite all the Hillary posters in the theater, my sense is that everyone who left there will vote Trump, 100%. But they'll tell the pollsters otherwise.

here it is, you'll have a hard time believing it, so put your own eyes on it:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/michael_moore_trumps_elec.php

Then someone took his spoken word and used it as narration, in the most effective bit of rhetoric I've seen in forever, in the form of a real political ad. Check that one out too.

American Digest often links Vox, a friendly site

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 26, 2016 5:35 PM  

A vote for Hillary is a vote for World War III.

Don't tempt me.

Anonymous map October 26, 2016 5:42 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XPxxWBY0v0

Russian anti-tank missile takes out Abrams.

Blogger Anchorman October 26, 2016 5:46 PM  

#69 Not sure what point you think you're making. Our logistics operations are constantly tested. We run 24/7 operations across the globe. We've been doing it for decades.

I know logistics talk isn't sexy, but it's critical to warfighting. Granted, it's been my profession for years, but it affects every shot fired, every meal eaten, every sortie flown, etc. It's been tested for decades. It's not hypothetical. And it's not just something you can jump in and be great at. The US is great at it. We don't need to mother-f*** everything about the US. There are certain things we do very well, better than any other nation.

As far as NCOs, how can you say that hasn't been tested, time and again, in war?

Honestly, I don't know what point you think you're making.

The Soviets of 1980 aren't the Russians of today. True. Russia today couldn't whip the Chechens. And they were in their own front yard. Their professional development was a problem then and there hasn't been a significant investment in their education since the Cold War. They just don't invest in their military education at the rate notable Western powers do. They are the completely untested ones, when it comes to kinetic warfare (as opposed to cyber, nuclear, etc).

There are some things Russia does well. For one, Putin is out-maneuvering Obama, Kerry, and Clinton. It's embarrassing. I do wonder how well he'd do if he didn't have our playbook (Hillary emails) for years, but I suspect they were used to confirm what he knew - they're amateurs.

Anyway, this is going further and further OT.

The bottom line is, Russia doesn't even need to get into a direct war with us. They never have. They can do what the ragheads do. Stir shit up and make us spend $1 trillion before we realize we can't make the area peaceful.

That, I fear, is what Putin will do. Because Hillary's too dumb to not take the bait.

Blogger jandolin October 26, 2016 5:49 PM  

A decapitated Iran wouldn’t threaten Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or Israel.

Slimey yids and the Iran obsession.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 5:49 PM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:Syria does seem to be headed into, "some damn fool thing in the Balkins," territory.

I just wish there was something that was identifiable as an objective. When W was in office, as stupid as the objective was, at least it existed.

Now there isn't even that.

American foreign policy exists in a fever dream at this point.


Just a REMINDER: Global Warfare: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

With videos so there is no doubt.

Meanwhile: When we are successful... and we will be {{{SMIRK}}}.

https://youtu.be/VtlO39wIRWs

And: What happens when the globalists don't get their pony?

https://youtu.be/2IiS6Fehd44

Transparency!

https://youtu.be/U4Cs5TEjxtk

Presidents are just furniture pieces.

Blogger S. Misanthrope October 26, 2016 5:57 PM  

He looked at me like I was crazy when I said Obama has been a war monger. I suppose he's not that loud about it, so maybe monger was the wrong word. But that doesn't change the fundamental disagreement we have.

Blogger S. Misanthrope October 26, 2016 5:58 PM  

He thinks Russia is a huge threat and that Obama/Hill didn't do enough to stand up to Russia.

Blogger S. Misanthrope October 26, 2016 5:59 PM  

IQ defines what's possible but culture defines what actually happens.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 6:02 PM  

Despite your president, everything your government does (your president is not the government), it does to complete the GLOBALIST agenda. That is the default mode that your government operates on.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner October 26, 2016 6:23 PM  

Someone in the Ukraine please put out rat poison spiked cocaine, for Joe Biden's son in charge of the nations petrol reserves.

Then voice over that Hillary wants to bring those people here to torture our dogs. It would lock up the single women vote

Single women wouldn't care if they saw videos of girls having their clits hacked off much less puppies.

Why do moslems stone gays to death (with rocks) and mutilate little girls genitals?

One day Moo Ham Mads oldest wife hit puberty and he realized the gays were right about his Willey being smaller than what is now cut off little girls.


Meh, she's not going to start WWIII. That strikes me as hyperbole. I agree that she'll push and push until there are consequences

What difference does it make? If she wants war or will stupidly blunder when trying to bluff k style people. You killed off our 666 portly paratrooper niggerette brigade you must be racist.

We could easily, trivially preserve 18th century technology and lifestyle. The elites did very well indeed in the 18th century

Few one alive today could make it with 18th century tech because all of the civilization behind 18thcentury tech is gone. Brick factories that burned wood, making charcoal with a pile of dirt. There are probably less than 20 blacksmiths in every state that could do that 18th century level of metal working. An EMP without radiation over the US would kill 80-90% of the US population, and even more in countries that receive aid from us.

Please all this talk of logistics and the effectiveness of NCO's is just that...talk. It has never been tested against a modern adversary

They were promoting wetbacks and groids that shouldn't have been promoted even when I was in. Do you think it will be the enemy that shoots comanderette nigga dike?

Yeah, I would prefer that people hold off on that 'nuke Chicago' thing.

Taking out the CDC in Atlanta will make any US bioweapons obviously come from military sources.

I think the democrats have realized that they can't pay countries run by crazy people to NOT build nuclear weapons

As long as there is a kickback/bribe involved leftists won't figure anything out.

just saw the most amazing video for Trump, and narrated by Michael Moore. Yes, you read that right. So I feel a win is certainly

We already noted that he was just ranting about poor stupid unemployed rednecks wanting to vote for TRUMP. Any people moved to vote for TRUMP after listening to him was not his intent. Just like people watched Duck Dynasty for all the wrong reasons & the previous coverage of "the man in the high castle" article here.

Blogger Ezekiel October 26, 2016 6:25 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:A vote for Hillary is a vote for World War III.

Don't tempt me.

Here, here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xB7usNSPo

Blogger VFM #7634 October 26, 2016 6:28 PM  

Still, I'm a bit muddled over the nice-nice between China and Russia. Shouldn't a demographically collapsing Russia be concerned with China's nascent territorial claims to the Russian Far East?

@34 Tipsy
Actually, it's China that's demographically collapsing right now. Their population is growing only because they haven't built up a huge elderly population yet like Russia has.

And the birth rate in Manchuria is considerably below the Chinese average.

Anonymous BGKB October 26, 2016 6:29 PM  

The left always has the worst luck in poster boys. https://www.yahoo.com/news/national-geographic-afghan-girl-arrested-pakistan-091906389.html

Anonymous RedJack October 26, 2016 6:49 PM  

I find it very interesting that no one in the media is paying attention to the fact we are walking to a war with Russia. And we are doing so because Russia is killing ISIS.

It is like a bad whisky dream without the hangover.

Blogger LonestarWhacko October 26, 2016 6:59 PM  

I've been watching Russia for a while using public sources. Seems like they're thin on the ground. They don't have the resources to seriously fight in ground combat. So, that means tactical nuclear weapons, at the very least. Because they learned some bitter lessons from the Germans. Much more dangerous today, because they're undermanned and underequipped. The gear that they were showing in Syria wasn't in tip top shape. It wasn't maintained well. You could look at the aircraft on the flight line and see the slap dash repairs. That's what I've noticed.

Putin knows he can push a bluff so far. He really needs that port on the Mediterranean. That's been a Russian desire for ages. Trump won't get involved in foreign bullshit. Clinton will wag the dog....just like the rapist did.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 26, 2016 7:08 PM  

BigGayKoranBurner wrote:Few one alive today could make it with 18th century tech because all of the civilization behind 18thcentury tech is gone. Brick factories that burned wood, making charcoal with a pile of dirt. There are probably less than 20 blacksmiths in every state that could do that 18th century level of metal working. An EMP without radiation over the US would kill 80-90% of the US population, and even more in countries that receive aid from us.

True, few could do it, and it could support few. However, it only takes a few. Those of us who are left could manage as well as the founding fathers did, and it would be trivial. Minimal effort could bring us up to Spanish-American war era technology. Enough of us know how it's done, and have done it. I've made my own charcoal, and mixed it potassium nitrate. I know several blacksmiths, and so on. Get outside the big cities, and things look much whiter and brighter.

All that is fun, but my point was that the elites, like Hillary and CuckRyan, will believe that they will be warm, dry and well-fed after a war, and that belief will influence their decisions.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 26, 2016 7:14 PM  

@80 Anchorman raises good points. The U.S. has long-range logistics down to a fine art. The British are the only other nation really in the game. Everybody else is effectively a regional power - the United States can reach to the other side of the planet and hit hard.

Anonymous The Kulak October 26, 2016 7:25 PM  

I read Anchorman's reply to the commenter @ 69 and others, but didn't come away impressed. No not with the logistics background or his 1980s-1990s era service but with his understanding of how rapidly the Russians have indeed, been modernizing and testing their kinetic hardware in Syria, beyond just the Kalibrs that can demonstrably saturate any air defenses around Incirlik AFB in Turkey from the Caspian Sea in retaliation for the destruction of the Russian base near Latakia, Kheimmim. The real issue is what the others mentioned regarding how Saddam stood back and allowed a massive buildup on his border, as well as political restrictions on U.S. logistics. Turkey is already slowly tilting to the Russian camp or at least pretending to, while the notion that NATO would hold together after Hildabeast launches a far bloodier war of aggression in Syria than the one against Serbia in 1999 is a fantasy. Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portugese and probably not Orban's Hungarians either won't bleed and die in a war with Russia that starts in Syria. Germany and France especially despite the latter despite pushing for Assad's removal will balk at any actual conflict that entails losses or the threat of a Russian gas supply cutoff in mid-winter. Anchorman is probably counting on Ramstein and other German bases being available to the U.S. in a conflict with Russia without question, but what if they ain't, and NATO is reduced to basically the U.S., Brits and Balts/Poles plus some Scandinavians coalition? Even in Romania or especially Bulgaria beyond Greece and Italy a U.S.-instigated war with Russia is going to be wildly unpopular and at the very least, as in 1999, result in officers of those nationalities leaking targeting and logistics data to the Russians like a sieve as the Greeks did when 90% of their countrymen opposed Bill Clinton's war (or how do you think the Serbs bagged that F-117A? They knew the target and the flight time and expertly timed their volley of old SA-3s SAMs of Sixties vintage).

"The bottom line is, Russia doesn't even need to get into a direct war with us. They never have. They can do what the ragheads do. Stir shit up and make us spend $1 trillion before we realize we can't make the area peaceful." Their Novorossiya proxies have been killing or wounding about 3 Ukies for every one of their own lost, at least until recently when the Ukrainian Army got slightly more competent...but still lacks sufficient armor and artillery for any breakthrough, the Poles would have to provide that along with their own personnel willing to die to break into Donetsk and Lugansk cities. As I've maintained in previous threads on this subject the Russian proxies in Donbass have probably lost between 5 and 6,000 men plus a few score Russian 'vacationers' who were actual active duty. Ukie losses based on Lost Armor are conservatively estimated from April 2014 to present at between 14,500-18,000 KIA, and likely times two wounded. So those backward Russians based on what Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges has admitted and Breedlove too in private emails leaked out have been pretty damn good at killing large numbers of Ukies with massed arty and GRAD fire guided by swarms of drones. I don't think the U.S. Army if deployed to eastern Ukraine would do so much awesomer than the Ukrainians and (Polish vacationers) have.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 26, 2016 7:35 PM  

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:The U.S. has long-range logistics down to a fine art. The British are the only other nation really in the game. Everybody else is effectively a regional power - the United States can reach to the other side of the planet and hit hard.

Good point. The Russians can only reach that far with ICBMs. If pressed, they would have no other choice.

Why do Russians, who are intelligent, know that their military is not as capable as the US military yet not act on that knowledge? Probably because a competent, professional military is not how they won the last war, and is not how they plan to win the next war.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 8:03 PM  

And just who have we "hit hard" since WWII? And even that, we barely won. But thanks to the Russians.

Anonymous The Kulak October 26, 2016 8:07 PM  

http://thesaker.is/otto-skorzeny-why-didnt-we-take-moscow/

http://orientalreview.org/2013/06/29/myth-of-the-eastern-front-in-american-popular-culture/

@ Napoleon 12pdr @Ominous Cowherd -- I think again, you all underestimate the improvement in Russian military prowess and moreover, the morale edge that would come from the U.S. firing the first shot (and thus having to rely primarily on intimidation and threats to keep many a NATO ally in line, with Germany most prominent among those). Also, ya'll don't know nearly as much about the Eastern Front of WW2 as you think you do where the actual Wehrmacht to Soviet loss ratio ended in 1 to 1.3. That's right, for all the slaughtering and capturing of millions of Red Army soldiers the Wehrmacht did en route to Moscow and Stalingrad in 1941-42 (and for which they still paid in blood with over 600,000 men before the German lines nearly collapsed from the Soviet counteroffensive of early December 1941), the Sovs started to balance it in blood by killing something like 4 million Wehrmacht and Axis allies from Stalingrad to Berlin, with Operation Bagration being one of the most crushing defeats of any force in modern warfare -- 300,000 Germans wiped out in a week. The Nazi war machine of course killed far more civilians than did the Soviets but the death toll among German civilians from exposure, disease and the rapes which came mostly from the second Soviet echelon was about 1.5 to 2 million. The Galicia SS division that the Ukro-nationlists take so much pride in was wiped out by Konev's Guards Army in less than four days, if memory serves me, and ran away to Czechoslovakia to try and surrender to the Americans and Brits.

"The Russians can only reach that far with ICBMs. If pressed, they would have no other choice." This is simply incorrect. Given their penchant for maskirovka as well as how the CIA didn't see the Kalibr's medium range land attack capability coming, the Russians have more than enough air launched cruise missiles to conventionally hit the U.S. West Coast as far south as SeaTac if not San Diego and not just Alaska/Hawaii from subs and Blackjack/Backfire raids.

I know with war underway in Syria and then Ukraine after the 1st Guards Tank Army comes into the Donbass and crushes the Ukies so fast the U.S. and Polish 'vacationers' and advisers wouldn't even have time to escape the pocket before they end up on LifeNews, it would come as a shock. But some Kalibrs and other conventional Russian missiles, should we attack Kaliningrad or Crimea, would hit Bremerton and probably McChord JRB too. I know this sounds un-American to point out, again, but the point of such strikes would probably be to try to facilitate a U.S. military coup against an insane civilian leadership before 'The Button' gets pushed and to wake up Americans to the fact that no, we are not invulnerable on our own soil and the neocon presumption that Europeans will bleed and die as in WW2 with relatively low U.S. losses so we can pick up the global pieces again is false.

Again, the horror of 'die russen kommt' is still strong enough in the older German generation's psyche if only from inherited memory to keep Germany out of a U.S.-Russian war the Americans start, unless Washington is just counting on launching strikes from Ramstein and Russian missile attacks ensuring German compliance. I think if it starts in Syria that cannot be counted on.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 8:07 PM  

Regardless of those who think Russia is the kid on the block carrying nothing but a conventional BB gun, war with Russia will devastate Europe in a manner of days. US-NATO so much as touches the Russia Motherland, and all bets are off. Every NATO base will be junk. When Russia turns on its anti-aircraft/missile hardware, our best fighters will be junk. Those meteors will be our satellites.

I'm still amazed at all the cold war CIA brainwashing that has a grasp on peoples minds still.

Long range logistics are great, when you have the planes and ships to logistic.

Anonymous The Kulak October 26, 2016 8:10 PM  

"And just who have we "hit hard" since WWII? And even that, we barely won. But thanks to the Russians." That was another point I was going to bring up about the stupidity of Gen. Milley's braggadocio. So you're really going to hit the Russians harder than they were hit by the Wehrmacht from 1941-43, when they lost millions of lives and much of their nation's territory to the invader? If you will, then that can only mean the incineration of most U.S. cities or at least D.C. and any that have a military base nearby (goodbye San Antonio, Groton, San Diego, etc).

Anonymous The Kulak October 26, 2016 8:21 PM  

I don't think the Russian objective will be to 'devastate Europe', they have to think about who their trading partners might be short of total nuclear war. But with hostilities already underway against their troops in Syria and little left to lose, they are certainly capable of encircling the Ukrainian Army in Donbass in about 100 hours, then rolling to Kiev if they want or merely settling for seizing that 'land bridge' to Crimea then supporting the Novorossiyans and locally recruited forces to take Kiev. Lvov and Galicia they may very well leave to the Poles or the Hungarians may roll in to TransCarpathia for the protection of the Rusyn/Hungarian minority there from Ukro reprisals. The SS Das Reich division flag wavers of the Azov Battalion (aka NATO's 'Foreign Legion-naires') in particular in Mariupol would probably be put up against the wall and shot in large numbers by furious locals once they see Russian tanks rolling in.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 8:22 PM  

A full on war with Russia, without nukes, will be a massive orgy of violence in days, compared to WWII's months and years. All this talk about winning a war with Russia is just insane. No one will "win".

And if China sides with Russia? Forget it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 26, 2016 8:22 PM  

Elder Son wrote:And just who have we "hit hard" since WWII? And even that, we barely won. But thanks to the Russians.

No, the Russians won the war, thanks in some part to our help in forcing the Wehrmacht to divert resources to the south and west, and to the arms we supplied.
Regarding kill ratios, if Hitler had allowed a retreat from Stalingrad, the numbers would have been vastly different on both sides. Might even have saved the Reich. But Hitler was a Gamma.

Anonymous Avalanche October 26, 2016 9:29 PM  

@9 "What troops does she plan on using to fight WW3?
Only about 55% of 15-24 year olds are non-hispanic white. And probably 75% of those are from families that consider her a traitorous snake. And the other 25% are special snowflakes."

Why on earth do you think she would ASK these young people to join up and fight?! The plans and preps for a FORCIBLE draft have been in place and ready to activate for many years! What do you think that "go to the post office and register when you turn 18" is for?!

I wish there were a way to get through to all the millennials that THEY are draft age!

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 10:04 PM  

I don't think the Russians want to devastate Europe at all. But push comes to shove, to save Mother Russia, Europe will be devastated.

Russians are Russians and will always be Russians. The West? What IS the West?

Follow the NATO brigades/Divisions on Twitter. One will get a good picture of what NATO in up to on Russia's borders. Like the pre-planned 172 exercises for 2017 on her borders.

Blogger Elder Son October 26, 2016 10:07 PM  

Hitler this and Hitler that and if he would have this and that. Hell, almost every German in Russia was on meth. And in short supply of same. And who was helping who when Churchill pretty much handed the Soviets Eastern Europe?

Blogger Arthur Isaac October 26, 2016 10:32 PM  

We've thought that TPTB has wanted to remove a patriotic military from the USA (for what little that's worth). It no longer serves their global interests. They would rather kill off the militaries and assassinate their regime changes than risk mass conventionally trained military coming to settle scores upon them.

Robots and drones are the way to control populations going forward (until those populations can be "safely" disposed of).

The regimes will be puppet tributary powers designed to keep the local populations tamped down and to serve as a tripwire/ circuit breaker.

The world has operated under some form of this during civilization, and its coming back to the West.

Blogger Arthur Isaac October 26, 2016 10:43 PM  

Also, what delusional place are Americans in where we think that Russia is going to allow the removal of Assad?

Hillary's backers are going to kill are military then attempt to destabilize Russia by killing Putin.

If Jerusalem goes up in flames so much the easier to usher in the (((New World Order))).

Holocaustianity won't hold a candle to nuked-Israel-ianity.

Blogger Thucydides October 26, 2016 11:06 PM  

There are a multitude of flash points that Hillary or the Globalists in general could stumble into war:

The Shiite/Sunni civil war. The Middle East is in turmoil thanks to Obama leaving the traditional US policy of supporting the Sunni Kingdoms to ensure the flow of ol to US allies and trading partners. (America imports most of its oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela). By throwing in with the Shiites Obama has destabilized the Middle East far more seriously than anything "W" did, and with demographic changes in the region, this is long term realignment and redrawing of borders. Choosing sides between would be hegemony like turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt has the potential of putting the US on the losing side regardless of who they decide to champion. Trump is correct to draw down US commitments in the Middle East.

Russia isn't the innocent party in Europe; what they see as "encirclement" is primarily Western and Christian nations attempting to exit the Slavic and Orthodox Russian orbit. Joining NATO and the EU was what they saw as the best means of ensuring that they remain out of Russia's grasp. In retrospect this was obviously a poor choice, but without any really viable alternatives it is hard to blame them. NATO hasn't got the military chops or political will to successfully defend the Baltic Republics or much of the former Warsaw pact, and the EU is a corrupt organization which would prefer to feed off the Eastern European nations. Russian attempts to bring their former possessions to heel will destabilize the entire region, and I doubt Russia will find reconquering their former Empire or holding it to be easy or cheap.

I will submit Ukraine is a special case. West of the Dnieper River much of the population is Catholic and Western, while east of the river most of the population is Slavic and Orthodox. It should not be a surprise that the people of Western Ukraine wanted to establish a trade partnership with the EU rather than Russia.

Russia and China may be allies of convenience for now, but China is eyeing Siberian wealth much like the Japanese did back in the 1930's. I doubt the next Battle of Chalking Gol will play out in the Russian's favour.

Finally China's aggressive behaviour in the South China sea threatens maritime trade in a huge region of the world, and is bound to spark conflicts in the region, especially as the nations making up the "First Island Chain" realize it is up to them to protect themselves and their territorial integrity.

So Hillary, the Democrats and globalists in general have a multitude of possible triggers for global wars. And historians should recognize that regional conflicts have the tendency to coalesce into larger, global conflicts.

Blogger dfordoom October 26, 2016 11:09 PM  

@63. Nobody In Particular

I hope that Trump proves to be an inspired leader, like Churchill

Please God, not like Churchill.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 27, 2016 12:31 AM  

The Kulak wrote:@ Napoleon 12pdr @Ominous Cowherd -- I think again, you all underestimate the improvement in Russian military prowess ...

I do hope you are right. If Napoleon12pdr is right, then the consequence is that they go nuclear early, or surrender.

My point was that if Napoleon12pdr is right, the reason the Russians are happy with a second-rate military would be that they are relying on first-rate nukes. If the Russians are content with not being able to project conventional force halfway round the world, it's because they can project nuclear force halfway round the world, with ICBMs, bombers, cruise missiles and so on.

Everything I have learned about Soviet military doctrine suggests that they viewed nuclear war as winnable, and a reasonable option. They still have serious civil defense, they still have nukes, they may or may not have much else.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett October 27, 2016 12:36 AM  

@110. You echo my thoughts so well. If Trump is in the hip pocket of (((advisers))) like Churchill was, well and truly screwed we are.

Anonymous Eric the Red October 27, 2016 1:15 AM  

You know, for a nation of 180 million and an economy that had to rebuild itself from a communist shambles, the Russian military is extraordinarily advanced. Put-downs of the Russian military are not well grounded in logic or reality; their weapons systems can go toe-to-toe with anything the US has, and they are improving all the time.

They don't need to go nuclear in order to win battles with the converged US military.

Blogger Ezekiel October 27, 2016 6:16 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:The Kulak wrote:@ Napoleon 12pdr @Ominous Cowherd -- I think again, you all underestimate the improvement in Russian military prowess ...

I do hope you are right. If Napoleon12pdr is right, then the consequence is that they go nuclear early, or surrender.

My point was that if Napoleon12pdr is right, the reason the Russians are happy with a second-rate military would be that they are relying on first-rate nukes. If the Russians are content with not being able to project conventional force halfway round the world, it's because they can project nuclear force halfway round the world, with ICBMs, bombers, cruise missiles and so on.

Everything I have learned about Soviet military doctrine suggests that they viewed nuclear war as winnable, and a reasonable option. They still have serious civil defense, they still have nukes, they may or may not have much else.

There's is a third option: cloak-and-dagger. Foreign leader starting to unnerve Russia? Foreign leader comes down with an unfortunate case of polonium poisoning. (Yes Clintons, two can play at this game.) Or failing, that, just find out which section of their populace hates them the most and pass out the heavy ordnance. Hard to fight a war when you have an army of Deplorables marching on your capitol.

It would, of course, be a bad idea to respond in kind against Putin, seeing as most of his opponents in Russia think he should take a harder line against the US and NATO.

Blogger CM October 27, 2016 9:37 AM  

--Hillary will start WWIII because she was prepaid to do it--

I'm late to this, but i was going to go with because shes a woman.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 27, 2016 9:42 AM  

Ezekiel wrote:There's is a third option: cloak-and-dagger. Foreign leader starting to unnerve Russia? Foreign leader comes down with an unfortunate case of polonium poisoning

That would be a new tactic, or else how to explain the continued existance of the Bush and Clinton crime families?

Seriously, I like that proposal. Let the elites kill one another off, and leave the rest of us out of it.

Blogger VFM #7634 October 27, 2016 10:25 AM  

For the third day of early voting in Florida:

Republican minus Democrat in early voting, Oct. 26: -3,854
Cumulative: -34,485

Republican minus Democrat in mail-in ballots, Oct. 26: +9,873
Cumulative: +46,234

Republican minus Democrat overall, Oct. 26: +6,019
Cumulative: +11,749

Blogger D'Arcey October 27, 2016 2:26 PM  

Tangential and noteworthy re: predictive models

Clash of Civilizations, Pg 36-37 / 322 (Kindle version):

Paradigms also generate predictions, and a crucial test of a paradigm’s validity and usefulness is the extent to which the predictions derived from it turn out to be more accurate than those from alternative paradigms. ...
A civilizational approach, on the other hand, emphasizes the close cultural, personal, and historical links between Russia and Ukraine ..., and focuses instead on the civilizational fault line that divides Orthodox eastern Ukraine from Uniate western Ukraine[.] ... While a statist approach highlights the possibility of a Russian-Ukrainian war, a civilizational approach minimizes that and instead highlights the possibility of Ukraine splitting in half, a separation which cultural factors would lead one to predict might be more violent than that of Czechoslovakia but far less bloody than that of Yugoslavia.


Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts