When is the last time the US won a war?

[Silver]

Our expensive military couldn't beat tiny North Korea.
Nor North Vietnam.
We kicked some Cubans off of Grenada.
The Taliban is still killing our troops in Afghanistan.
Iraq is a mess even though US taxpayers spent billions there.
Al-Qaeda is still around.
ISIS or ISIL is on everybody's lips.
And now, another warmonger in the Trump administration is talking about having no more patience with North Korea. Trump himself is blaming China.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-1 ... ames-china

Any bets on the draft being reinstated soon?

[Ezra]

Modem war = debt and lose in freedoms.

[DesertWonderer]

Can't and not allowed to are two different things.

[Different]

Im glad I have health problems cause im still in the drafting age range:(

[gclayjr]

1990-1991

Desert Storm

Regards

George Clay

[Silver]

Can't and not allowed to are two different things.

Bingo! Thank you for taking the discussion there immediately. That's where I had hoped we'd end up. "All wars are bankers' wars." They, the bankers, make more money off the interest earned on money they loan nations when they are perpetually at war or at least in a war footing.

Instead of making bankers richer, why don't we seek peace?
Because our politicians work for the bankers, not the serfs like me and you.

[Silver]

1990-1991

Desert Storm

Regards

George Clay

George,
Did you serve over there at that time? I'm glad you made it back, if you did.

May I ask a few questions? These are sincere questions, not an invitation to a fight.
1. Was it really a victory when we went back in a few years later for a do-over with Saddam Hussein?
2. Was it really a victory when US citizens were being told that we were fighting for democracy but the rulers of Kuwait never did, before or after, offer their citizens any form of democracy that we would recognize?
3. Was it even a fair fight? I read about captured Iraqi soldiers walking around in the desert, separated from their units, with nothing more than a can of Pepsi to sustain them.
4. Was it any of our business when Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq and was only separated by some British mandate a few decades earlier?

[Silver]

Modem war = debt and lose in freedoms.

True

[gclayjr]

Silver,

George,
Did you serve over there at that time? I'm glad you made it back, if you did.

May I ask a few questions? These are sincere questions, not an invitation to a fight.
1. Was it really a victory when we went back in a few years later for a do-over with Saddam Hussein?
2. Was it really a victory when US citizens were being told that we were fighting for democracy but the rulers of Kuwait never did, before or after, offer their citizens any form of democracy that we would recognize?
3. Was it even a fair fight? I read about captured Iraqi soldiers walking around in the desert, separated from their units, with nothing more than a can of Pepsi to sustain them.
4. Was it any of our business when Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq and was only separated by some British mandate a few decades earlier?

No I was in at the end of Viet Nam, and I never actually went to Viet Nam. But thanks for the sentiment

1.) You can define virtually every war as a loss, if you only define a win as a PERMANENT solution to problems. I think that every war can be traced to some previous war and virtually every previous war as a cause to another wear. Maybe true, maybe not, but then Social Science is not real science.

2.) I don't know who you were listening to, but I never was told that that war was to eliminate the KINGDOM of Kuwait. In fact it was to restore that Kingdom.

3. ) Sherman said "War is Hell" Robert E. Lee said "It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.", and George S. Patton said
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his". These are men who know what war is. War is should not be an extension of politics, but fought only when politics fails. Then you must win it. (That by the way is why limited war... or measured responses... so beloved by the left... are really more terrible and causes more long lasting misery than fighting a war only when nothing else works, then fighting it to win)

4.) This is a political question. Perhaps a reasonable question to ask before going to war, but irrelevant once the shooting starts.

Regards,

George Clay

PS. The editor on this site won't let me write Patton's quote correctly



.

[Silver]

George,
Thanks for your perspective. Makes me think.

[h_p]

I think it's pretty safe to say the Gulf War was a win. The UN coalition had a clear objective when they went in, and met that objective with overwhelming force. In fact, there was so much momentum after the victory, that there was considerable push to continue the fighting beyond the bounds of the objectives to take down Hussein and invade Baghdad after Hussein started killing the Kurds, but Bush rejected that. He knew that the worst thing that could happen to Iraq was to leave a power-vacuum there, and he was probably right.

Also, before the war, the Iraq army was the 3rd biggest in the world. Even our military considered them to be a formidable foe, and had been battle-hardened in the recent war with Iran. There was even a very real possibility that chemical weapons could be used against our troops. But after bombing the living daylights out of them for weeks--which was done BECAUSE of the very real fear of a long, drawn-out ground war--they pretty much lost the will to fight. Nobody expected the mass surrenders when it happened.

[sandman45]

It is an illusion.. the real people who win the wars are the ones who are financing countries involved in the wars.. which increases and perpetuates Debt. Further enslaving those countries.

[gclayjr]

Sandman45,

Congratulations, it only took 4 hours for you to turn this thread into a Jewish conspiracy. How long would you wait, If someone started a thread asking whether people preferred anchovies or pepperonis on their pizza, for you to propose a Jewish banker conspiracy to boost the pepperoni business?


Regards,

George Clay

[brianj]

Silver,

3. Was it even a fair fight? I read about captured Iraqi soldiers walking around in the desert, separated from their units, with nothing more than a can of Pepsi to sustain them.

3. ) Sherman said "War is Hell" Robert E. Lee said "It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.", and George S. Patton said
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other cupcake die for his". These are men who know what war is. War is should not be an extension of politics, but fought only when politics fails. Then you must win it. (That by the way is why limited war... or measured responses... so beloved by the left... are really more terrible and causes more long lasting misery than fighting a war only when nothing else works, then fighting it to win)

I would be a bit more explicit in answering number three by saying that in war NOBODY WANTS A FAIR FIGHT. Read Sun Tzu. One of his principles is that when you are weak, appear strong. When you are strong, appear weak. If your enemy thinks you are strong they will be less likely to attack you, giving you time to build up strength so you have a chance at winning. If your enemy thinks you are weak they will be more willing to attack, only to be discover how strong they really are when your forces are being cut down. The Nephites implemented similar strategies even though they had no knowledge of Sun Tzu or his book The Art of War.

War IS deception. Silver, have you ever heard of the man who never was? In 1944 a homeless person who died on the streets of London was given a military uniform and false documents describing a small diversionary invasion at Normandy shortly before the real invasion happened at Calais. His body was taken by Submarine to a point off the Spanish coast and released at a time when the tide would carry it toward shore. That body was quickly recovered, Nazi spies acquired the intelligence, and Hitler became convinced that when the Normandy invasion happened it was only a diversion. It helped that a bunch of wood and tarp tanks and aircraft were built and staged near the English coast where they would be photographed by German recon aircraft so the Germans saw evidence of staging for the Calais invasion.

If you try to have a "fair fight" in war, or even if attacked on the street, you will lose.

Oh, and there have been a few other wars won since Kuwait was liberated, but those were events you wouldn't hear about if you weren't somehow involved.

[gclayjr]

Brianj,

I would be a bit more explicit in answering number three by saying that in war NOBODY WANTS A FAIR FIGHT. Read Sun Tzu. One of his principles is that when you are weak, appear strong. When you are strong, appear weak. If your enemy thinks you are strong they will be less likely to attack you, giving you time to build up strength so you have a chance at winning. If your enemy thinks you are weak they will be more willing to attack, only to be discover how strong they really are when your forces are being cut down. The Nephites implemented similar strategies even though they had no knowledge of Sun Tzu or his book The Art of War.

As far as principle you are spot on. However, there are people who do want a fair fight. They are those who go for limited wars, or "measured responses". This is what many on the left go for. The fact of the matter is that the number 1 best situation is to avoid war. The number 2 best result is to WIN a war. The worst result is to go into fights, not to win but to "convince" the other side to agree with a political aim. This creates both more wars, and wars that never end. And one way to make this even worse is to temporarily stop fighting a war to allow things to be reset to make things more fair between the warring parties. Like we do between Israel and the Palestinians, or we tried to do between the Syrian government and the rebels, and so many other instances.

Prior to Truman, and Korea, the United States fought wars as a "failure of politics. That is to say, the political leaders tried to resolve international problems diplomatically or politically, and only after it was determined that the problem could not be resolved politically or diplomatically, then war was declared. Then, the job was basically given over to the military to WIN the war. Interestingly, the last war to be officially declared by congress was WW2 under FDR BEFORE Truman.

Now to be fair with Truman, he was the president who ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He did understand that the nature of war had changed. SO he came up with the idea off a LIMITED war. This he promoted in Korea. His idea was that if we killed enough Koreans (and Chinese), they would "feel the pain" and come to the bargaining table. WE all know how well that worked (we also know how valuable human life was for these people). Technically, we are still fighting the Korean war, there just has been a short pause in the fighting.

I recently read (OK I listened to the audio) a great book about President Eisenhower, a very underrated president called "Ike's Bluff" by Evan Thomas. He clearly lays out how Eisenhower, the first president of the "Cold War", came up with the idea of massive retaliation. His plan, which worked brilliantly, was to let the Soviets know that if we were to go to war, he would unleash everything, including nuclear weapons. He also was deliberately vague about what "line" that if crossed would cause him to unleash this massive retaliation. As a result, during all of this time, we did not get into any significant wars, particularly with the Soviets, or the Chinese, because they knew that it would be all out war. He actually tried to advise the new incoming president Kennedy about this, but Kennedy wasn't willing to listen.

So bottom line; if we had followed the advice of Sun Tzu and Ike Eisenhower, then there never would have been a Korean war, there never would have been a Viet Nam war, there might not have been a desert storm, and there would not have been a second Iraq war.

As a side note, I think that the draft should be brought back (for men, not women... I am a sexiest pig) and there should be no school deferment. If the sons of politicians and other powerful people have to fight along side of those who cannot avoid a draft, then again they would be much more careful about deciding when to go to war)

Regards,

George Clay

[Toto]

Deleted - Double post. See next post below.

[Toto]

The war in heaven continues on Earth today.

AND WE'RE LOSING THAT ONE TOO!!!


All Wars Are Bankers Wars

The families can’t handle peace, they fund contention, and that is what gives them their power.

[gclayjr]

And now were back to Jewish Banker conspiracy. How long would it take you, Toto, to twist a discussion about whether one prefers Anchovies or Pepperoni on a Pizza into a discussion about banker conspiracies to support the Pepperoni market?

I suppose that it is comfortable to feel you've solved all problems by blaming the bankers for everything (I guess the consumers of the bankers money have no responsibility for their decisions, because they are under the evil spell of the bankers), but I think it is a pathetic life. I suppose you never actually have for think through any issues or try to resolve any problems, or actually do anything except to beat, the Bankers did it drum, and then sit smugly in your basement and play video games.

But not a life I would like to live.

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

You "Jewish Banker conspiracy" folks seem to think that if some King, Emperor, Dictator or President wants something, and is willing to go to war to get it, and if the bankers encourage him, because they can make money off from it... the bankers are responsible for the war, not the King, Emperor, Dictator or president.

If you guys were consistent or coherent in your thinking, then we should hate people who run flying schools, and people who sell guns (oh yeah, the lefty loonies do hate them), because I'm sure the flying school, in order to make money, convinced Muslim men that they could get eternal bliss by taking their flying lessons, that did not include how to actually land a plane, and use that knowledge to blow up some American landmarks. Or that Guns stores whisper into ears of radical wingnuts, how great it would be to go kill a bunch of people so that they could sell them guns for a very high mark up.

Yes, there may be many people in many situations who selfishly and disgustingly take advantage of the evil that men do, and maybe even encourage them to do it, but the responsibility for that evil, rests at the feet of those who do it.

It is neither logical nor rational to dismiss all of this with a variation on the comedian Flip Wilson's catch phrase "The Bankers made me do it".

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

The video states that the US won the war of 1812.
This is inaccurate.
It was a draw.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

You need to watch this short video. I'm sure it will correct your misunderstanding!

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

George,
If you think the US won the 1812 war, just ask a Canadian.

[Toto]

And now were back to Jewish Banker conspiracy. How long would it take you, Toto, to twist a discussion about whether one prefers Anchovies or Pepperoni on a Pizza into a discussion about banker conspiracies to support the Pepperoni market?

I suppose that it is comfortable to feel you've solved all problems by blaming the bankers for everything (I guess the consumers of the bankers money have no responsibility for their decisions, because they are under the evil spell of the bankers), but I think it is a pathetic life. I suppose you never actually have for think through any issues or try to resolve any problems, or actually do anything except to beat, the Bankers did it drum, and then sit smugly in your basement and play video games.

But not a life I would like to live.

Regards,

George Clay

Mr Clay

You reply to my post was the biggest load of judgmental codswallop I have ever experienced! The Dunning-Kruger effect comes to mind. My response is more of a waste of energy and value production than sitting in a basement playing video games.

Never once did I call it a “Jewish Banker conspiracy”, nor did Michael Rivero mention the word Jew even once in the video I posted above. NOT EVEN ONCE!

Now, I may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but my opinions are well researched, and verified by family relative of a Rothschild. The families are not Jewish. They are Luciferian. As I stated above, the families can’t handle peace, they fund contention, and that is what gives them their power. His words, not mine.

Furthermore, I have in the past spend a great deal of time and effort opposing these people both in extre-constitutional governments and in courts corrupt beyond recognition. Some wins, mostly losses, but your implication that I think I have solved much of anything is unfounded.

I avoid participation in the insurrection of the Federal Reserve in as far as is practicable. It’s not that it’s impossible to live without their implements of control. I have seen it done. But it is not the kind of life I choose to live in view of the ignorance of my countrymen, and the evil that confronts us.

But one thing is for sure, I will not be responding to your missives in the future.

Toto

[gclayjr]

Toto,,

The Rothschild family is a wealthy family descending from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a court Jew to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, who established his banking business in the 1760s.[2] Unlike most previous court Jews, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth and established an international banking family through his five sons,[3] who established themselves in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Naples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

In the early modern period, a court Jew, or court factor (German: Hofjude, Hoffaktor) was a Jewish banker who handled the finances of, or lent money to, European royalty and nobility. In return for their services, court Jews gained social privileges, including in some cases being granted noble status. Court Jews were needed because prohibitions against usury applied to Christians, but did not apply to Jews.

Examples of what would be later called court Jews emerged in the High Middle Ages when the royalty, the nobility, and the church borrowed money from money changers or employed them as financiers. Among the most notable of these were Aaron of Lincoln and Vivelin of Strasbourg. Jewish financiers could use their family connections to provide their sponsors with finance, food, arms, ammunition, gold, and precious metals.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_Jew

Just mention the “Jewish Banker Conspiracy” and you’ll be as popular as a skunk at a garden party. Tolerant sophisticated people dismiss this concept as a hateful and tired cliche. They believe “anti-Semites” should be slandered, sent to jail and lose their livelihood.

The “Jewish Banker Conspiracy” is not a chimera. It is the plan of Rothschild-controlled central bankers to create a totalitarian system to protect their illegal private monopoly of the world’s credit. They print government currency for the price of the paper and then lend it to the government with interest.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=4150

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a duck. You conspiracy folks think that if you kind of drop the word "Jewish" wink wink in your conspiracy garbage, nobody will recognize how hateful and anti Semitic these conspiracies are.

So you guys rant like you have some special knowledge that us uninformed are too stupid to see, but you don't have the cojones to actually truthfully say what is at the root of your theories.

Regards,

George Clay

PS: I do give you credit of actually getting you panties in a twist over this. Most of the conspiracy folks here just ignore the word "Jewish" and just go on with their rants.

[Toto]

I rest my case.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated that the man who reads nothing but books approved by those whose intent is to teach the population to integrate into a disintegrating society."

--Toto
March 20, 2017