Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia: The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington

T14

Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it. Russia once made large numbers of second-rate tanks. That worm has turned. This thing is way advanced and outguns the American M1A2, having a 125mm smoothbore firing APFSDS long-rods to the Abrams 120mm. (As Hillary would know, that’s Armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot. You did know, didn’t you, Hill?) This isn’t the place for a disquisition on armor, but the above beast is an ver advanced design with unmanned turret and, well, a T34 it isn’t. (I was once an aficionado of tanks. If interested, here and here.)

A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that.  Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here?

The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating  American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people’s lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America’s recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents.  Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
48 Comments
Dutchman
Dutchman
August 11, 2016 11:26 am

WWII was the last symmetric war for the US. There won’t be any wars between the super powers, wars will be proxy wars – such as North vs South Vietnam.

At least the article had some logic. Fred must have gotten off the bottle.

Rob in Nova Scotia
Rob in Nova Scotia
  Dutchman
August 11, 2016 12:19 pm

Dutchman

I wish I had same confidence as you. Ukraine is acting like a proxy like you say, I suppose, but the problem is that the are picking a fight with a neighbour that has nuclear weapons. Some Ukes just got caught trying to launch a terrorist operation in Crimea. Lots will say that that is occupied territory. That the referendum is invalid. What a joke! Nobody raised a voice in dissension when Scotland held independence vote. Brexit the same. Yet here we are 2 years later and wonks and wags still whinge about how unfair it was for Crimea rejoining the Motherland. It doesn’t matter anyways. Russia has said it is part of RF and that is as Bugs Bunny would say.

[imgcomment image[/img]

Like Fred points out Wars hardly ever turn out as expected. We North America seem to think that we can keep poking wasp nest and not get stung. The first bomb dropped on Moscow will be returned to this continent in kind. When that does happen the milk bar will be closed and Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon crew of retards will quietly slink from town. Head for their bunkers. Leaving us common folk to clean up the mess.

In the meantime the shysters will tempt us with the mystery box.

JIMSKI
JIMSKI
August 11, 2016 11:29 am

So Donald will not go to war with Russia?
What are you new here? Presidents go to war when they are told or THEY ARE REMOVED.

Son of SSS
Son of SSS
August 11, 2016 11:34 am

Even the Washington crazies don’t want a war with Russia. No one wins

By the way, tanks are no longer imperative and becoming obsolete.
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/21st-century-warfare-renders-the-tank-obsolete/5017

Same goes for aircraft carriers and a lot of weapons. Disruption is hitting the military machine too. Another reason to avoid war; no one is sure what would happen

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Son of SSS
August 11, 2016 12:12 pm

If the Washington crazies don’t want a war with Russia, why are we running military exercises in Estonia, holding a NATO summit in Warsaw, talking about Russia having “seized” Crimea, maintaining economic sanctions against Russia, trying to depose their ally Assad, falsely accusing them of being the source of DNC emails and even working so hard to get all of their entire Olympic athletes banned from competition?

Dutchman
Dutchman
  Iska Waran
August 11, 2016 4:27 pm

@iska: “why are we running military exercises in Estonia”

It’s all just posturing. It would be suicide for any super power to bomb another’s country.

They will continue to harass each other with low fly by’s, capture a small boat, maybe shoot down a plane – but that’s about it.

Hayseed
Hayseed
  Son of SSS
August 12, 2016 12:48 pm

Carriers are obsolete, just as massive fortifications were early in the 20th century. They are not completely useless, but too vulnerable to do what they;re supposed to do. But to say the tank is obsolete, is American technological foolishness. Unless you plan on throwing bombs back and forth until both sides are exhausted, you have to send in the infantry. Infantry needs backing firepower. That means there will always be a need for some kind of armor, attack aircraft, and artillery. Drones make great disposable recon. But not real reliable ground support.

David
David
August 11, 2016 11:44 am

No fan of the idiots in charge of the USA but let’s not whitewash the Russians. They have been invading unprovoked for over three hundred years, like most countries that figure they can do it successfully and Putin is not some nice guy. If he figures to be able to do it successfully with limited risk and downside and it will be beneficial to Russia and to him, he will do so.

Persnickety
Persnickety
  David
August 11, 2016 12:04 pm

Please list out all of Russia’s unprovoked invasions since 1700. I will make it easy for you by breaking it into three categories:
1) 1700 through 1930
2) 1930 through 1950
3) 1950 through present

Persnickety
Persnickety
  Persnickety
August 11, 2016 2:48 pm

Nothing but crickets.

I can think of ONE, by the way – Finland. And the Ruskies absolutely got their asses handed to them, even though their numerical superiority ran as high as 100 to 1.

Other than that, the Russians haven’t been big on invading, and most of their actions outside Russian soil have been at least understandable, if sometimes at odds with US/UK desires.

jamesthewanderer
jamesthewanderer
  Persnickety
August 11, 2016 5:04 pm

Are you counting Hungary 1956 [1956: Soviet troops overrun Hungary – http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/4/newsid_2739000/2739039.stm%5D or Czechoslovakia [Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968 – https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/soviet-invasion-czechoslavkia%5D? Or were the warlike and threatening forces of Hungary and Czechoslovakia promising to invade the Soviet Union?
Or how about Afghanistan 1979 [The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980 – https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/soviet-invasion-afghanistan%5D – were the Afghans set to topple the Soviet Union? (Actually, this was probably a trap set by State Dept. neocons; I really don’t think the Soviets really wanted to invade Afghanistan, but felt forced into it).
But your illusion of a peaceful, tranquil Soviet Union beset by intransigent enemies on all sides is just that, an illusion. They have their share of warlike folks, and some of theirs get into power the same way ours do – enough fools support them that they succeed. They have every reason to suspect the West wishes them pain, as we do; JFK stopped nuclear missiles in Cuba, after all. They are trying to stop ours in Europe for the same reasons. Whether or not sane folks are in charge on both sides is a moral imperative for world survival – and I hope the odds are in our favor, on both sides.

Persnickety
Persnickety
  jamesthewanderer
August 11, 2016 5:30 pm

Hungary and Prague are interesting examples. USSR military force where it doesn’t belong – but arguably those nations were separate in name only from the USSR, and everyone understood them to be subordinated vassal states. That doesn’t make it right, but it does change the situation.

Likewise, you note that Afghanistan 1979 was potentially a trap for the USSR set by the west.

We could also debate all the “military assistance” crap that both east and west did throughout the cold war, and continuing through today in slightly different form.

Let’s say I concede the three military invasion examples above. How does that record compare with the US record since 1850, or the UK record for the entire same time period?

David
David
  Persnickety
August 11, 2016 8:46 pm

If you can only think of one, Finland, from your lower post, I can only conclude that you have not read much history. Nothing wrong with that, many find it boring, but then don’t argue it.

The aggressions are too long to list, just study a little history. In the links you will find plenty, poland, a couple of times, baltics, a couple of times, Caucasus, Crimea and other areas from the ottomans, and then of course the Balkans and Eastern Europe under the communists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17840446

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Empire

Russia did not get to be the largest country by being passive. I don’t suppose they are any worse than anyone else and much of their aggressive behavior is driven by a lack of defensible borders and the resulting need for buffers. One also might reasonably be on their side, especially in their many aggressions against the ottomans, but to ignore history……

The recent taking of Crimea I actually have no issue with, they have owned it for a long time, far longer than the Ukraine notionally did as the soviet state gave it to them for some reason. I think in the 1950s. To expect they would give up that naval base would be stupid.

Ed
Ed
  David
August 12, 2016 8:56 am

You can say that again.

kokoda
kokoda
  David
August 11, 2016 12:11 pm

Please read what you wrote – appears to be obvious errors.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  David
August 11, 2016 12:15 pm

What do the Russians want – more land? Go sell stupid someplace else.

David
David
  Iska Waran
August 11, 2016 8:54 pm

The aggressions are too long to list, just study a little history. In the links you will find plenty, poland, a couple of times, baltics, a couple of times, Caucasus, Crimea and other areas from the ottomans, and then of course the Balkans and Eastern Europe under the communists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17840446

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Russian_Empire

Russia did not get to be the largest country by being passive. I don’t suppose they are any worse than anyone else and much of their aggressive behavior is driven by a lack of defensible borders and the resulting need for buffers. One also might reasonably be on their side, especially in their many aggressions against the ottomans, but to ignore history……

The recent taking of Crimea I actually have no issue with, they have owned it for a long time, far longer than the Ukraine notionally did as the soviet state gave it to them for some reason. I think in the 1950s. To expect they would give up that naval base would be stupid.

Ed
Ed
  David
August 12, 2016 8:57 am

I didn’t mean that to be taken literally.

TJF
TJF
August 11, 2016 11:52 am

China’s DF-21 missile perhaps could hit one of our aircraft carriers, but so could any number of countries that have basic diesel-electric submarines. They just need to be in the right place at the right time to get a carrier. In a naval shooting war it is really only the big ocean theory that will protect the carriers.

Our submarines are excellent at strategic deterrence (SSBNs) and at intel collection and special forces type ops (SSNs) and would be good at destroying enemy shipping where ever it may be. Our surface navy is more vulnerable to attack and is more useful in a projection of power application than actual naval warfare.

Morongobill
Morongobill
August 11, 2016 12:07 pm

My guess if that not one of those neocons ever got punched in the nose. If they had and if there was a draft that would take their young, perhaps they might have a different attitude.

As the movie said, our blood, their guts.

Veritas
Veritas
August 11, 2016 12:23 pm

Fred has always gotten too much sunshine. His military analysis is always on a par with Joe Biden’s comments. Imagine Sweden fighting Russia, who could have predicted the outcome of that? Perhaps Russia’s military greatness is better demonstrated by its invasion of Finland in 1939. And the Russian’s build tanks, not good tanks but lots of them. That’s because they lack good engineers but have balls. America lack good engineers but don’t have balls hence Fred’s Pajama boy whinning.

Go to your safe place Fred.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 1:22 pm

If it’s true that Russia’s conventional weaponry is inadequate, that just makes their nukes even more dangerous. Why are we even concerning ourselves with Crimea, Ukraine, the Baltic States – or Syria, for that matter?

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iska Waran
August 11, 2016 4:30 pm

The Russians, the soviets actually, once developed a nuclear rifle bullet that would melt a tank.

Wonder if that earlier research could be put into rapid production today if things went really bad for them?

I imagine there has been enough nuclear technological improvement since the first trials to overcome the problems they presented and make them more practical today.

The next big war may bring some really interesting developments to the battlefield.

http://www.pravdareport.com/science/tech/19-11-2014/129079-atomic_bullets-0/

Ed
Ed
  Anonymous
August 12, 2016 9:01 am

“The Russians, the soviets actually, once developed a nuclear rifle bullet that would melt a tank.”

You believe that and link to Pravda as a source? No wonder you’re posting anonymously.

Podge
Podge
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 1:23 pm

Sweden was at one time europe’s preeminent millitary power until it got the shit kicked out of them by ,let’s guess,hmmmm that’s right Russia.In its war with Finland it didn’t use its best forces,which is why the Germans thought it would be a walkover.Russians are not super humans but if war comes we’re all FUCKED.

Persnickety
Persnickety
  Podge
August 11, 2016 1:40 pm

The USSR’s invasion of Finland proved two things:
1) Commie conscripts and their sycophant generals weren’t actually very good at war, and
2) The Finns, with a military force smaller than a Texas garage sale, are absolute badasses on their home turf.

The main reason that the USSR survived WW2 is their climate and geography. The Germans miscalculated and fell into the same mistake as Napoleon. With better strategy they would have held the most important western parts of the USSR and the remainder of the USSR would have been an isolated central Asian fiefdom. In that case the US and UK would have had a far more difficult fight with Germany and it probably would have deadlocked somewhere.

gtv
gtv
  Persnickety
August 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Any invading force of Russia has the immediate disadvantage: even the European portion of that country is huge. It’s a logistical nightmare even without the first problem of an occupying army: you need to hold the land that you took. Germany simply did not the manpower to hold European part of Russia for long, especially with conflicting needs that diverted its forces to take Ukraine and toward the oil fields in Caucasus. The failure at the gate of Moscow was symbolic, but Moscow itself wasn’t important an objective (Hitler himself didn’t think so.) Even if the Germans to take Moscow in the winter of 1941, they still might have achieved nothing. Napoleon’s Grande Armée took Moscow before the winter set in, and found the city to be more of a trap. Similarly the German’s 6th Army captured Stalingrad, but eventually found trapped in a Soviet counter-offensive.

Hitler made a terrible mistake in choosing to invade the Soviet Union before dispatching the UK. Granted that Operation Lion had tough goings, but any strategic move to force the UK to sue for peace would have solidified Germany’s hold over the continent. Stalin was in no mood to fight Hitler in 1941 or even in 1942. The Soviet military was still recovering from the purges and the failures of the war against Finland. Without the UK and the Soviet Union, the USA wouldn’t have a chance as its land force was no match against the German Wehrmacht.

rhs jr
rhs jr
  gtv
March 16, 2021 12:10 am

You discount the factor that defeated the French and the Germans: super cold weather bad luck they couldn’t handle/survive with the clothing and equipment/oils they had. I was stationed in North Dakota the Winter of 1977 and experienced some of that kind of unusual extreme cold; you experience that kind of cold and you understand first hand how all the other explanations are armchair quarterback bullshit.

RCW
RCW
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 1:29 pm

Yeah, Veritas my comment is geared towards you and your ilk.

Rdawg
Rdawg
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 1:49 pm

As a good American engineer, fuck you Veritas. There are lots of us out here.

Gator
Gator
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 1:51 pm

You miss the point. This was when the soviets invaded Finland. The fins were fighting on their own soil, defending their own country. The point of freds post is that in order to fight the Russians, we would have to do it on their soil, invading their country, since the Russians aren’t going to invade us.

The point is that we shouldn’t attack a country like that. No one in the last few centuries has had a successful war against Russia in Russia. We can’t even defeat the little taliban in third world Afghanistan. We haven’t won anything since Grenada, if you even want to count that. We got our asses kicked in Vietnam. We obviously aren’t very good at this, so we should probably just stick to defending ourselves.

Persnickety
Persnickety
  Gator
August 11, 2016 2:52 pm

Invading people is generally a losing idea. With Russia the climate and geography are even larger factors than the people. Regardless.

I disagree with your list though – in the 1991 Gulf War we devastated an opponent with a huge and relatively modern army, engaging in conventional warfare. We clearly won that war – in large part because we stopped once we had achieved our objective, instead of pressing on to “regime change” and the quagmire that Iraq is today. Ironic that GWH Bush managed the only clear victory in a large-ish war since WW2, and his son completely undid the victory and made things much worse. To be crystal clear, I am not endorsing anything about the 2003 Iraq invasion that troubles us even today.

rhs jr
rhs jr
  Veritas
August 11, 2016 2:52 pm

Not so Veritas. The Germans made fools of the English and Russians by deceptions and surprise attacks (as did Japan) and made great initial progress against inferior Allied equipment but within a year, Axis butts got destroyed by better US and Russian equipment. The T-34s and the Russian Fighter Aircraft were better and everything worked in the cold whereas the German stuff froze stiff. I also remember 4Oct1957 vividly (we didn’t succeed until 31Jan1958). We went on to the moon and Russia fell apart but now we have the morons in charge and Putin is about to kick our Liberal’s and NeoCon’s asses.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  rhs jr
August 11, 2016 4:34 pm

When the Russians didn’t have bombs left to hit the invading Germans during winter weather they loaded their bombers up with water and bombed them with it the way a forest fire tanker drops water on a forest fire.

I understand it was quite effective at both killing and demoralizing the already freezing German soldiers.

RCW
RCW
August 11, 2016 1:27 pm

Sing it Fred!

I’m so bloody tired of the meddlers, muckers & world-improvers we elect (in the U.S.) sticking their big fat noses into everyone else’s business wreaking havoc and causing mayhem, while we ignore our own problems. Go ahead, call me an isolationist as I’m proud of that label. I too think that those who call for war should be the 1st drafted and serve in the front lines, no exceptions, otherwise go away, retreat back into your troll holes and STFU!

“I believe in only one thing: liberty, but I do not in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.” – H.L. Mencken

nkit
nkit
August 11, 2016 1:41 pm

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” ~ Albert Einstein

unit472
unit472
August 11, 2016 1:57 pm

The ‘tank’ was a solution to a WW1 problem. It reigned supreme during WW2 as its mobility and firepower had no counter. It really hasn’t been used on a large scale since 1973. The US Army is phasing MBT out of its war plans. Too heavy, too big of a logistical tail and not enough firepower.
Getting there ‘firstest with the mostest’ no longer allows for loading trains carrying hundreds of tanks, tank recovery vehicles, fuel, ammo and spare parts trucks nnd moving it all couple of hundred miles from their bases to the border. Not in the age of satellite reconnaissance and precision guided munitions.

Losing a $10 million MBT to a $100,000 missile is untenable and, as Don Rumsfeld pointed out, it is easier to add more C-4 to a warhead, mine or IED than more armor to a 70 ton behemoth. Germany did not lose WW2 because its tanks were no good. Its problem was Russia and the US could lose two tanks to allow another tank to shoot the Tiger in the rear.

If an enemy is seldom as weak as the attacker thinks they are never 10 feet tall either. I also believe nuclear deterrence still works so, as noted, proxies would have to be used. In that case NATOs economic, technological, industrial and manpower advantages over Russia would make the West, if not 10 feet tall, a good 8 feet plus as compared to Russia. Fighting Russia to the last Pole, Ukrainian and Lithuanian might not be good for the people of those nations but it would exhaust and bankrupt Russia.

Hayseed
Hayseed
  unit472
August 12, 2016 2:08 pm

Germany lost because they were a small country fighting the largest powers in the world. England was a massive global power which brought it’s colonies into the fight. The Soviet Union was messed up, but it was quickly modernizing, had lots of raw materials, and massive guts. The US was the industrial powerhouse of the period, with a huge influx of European engineers and scientists fleeing the Germans.

Today, the US is a brittle super power. We can create great mobile phones, but we buy our rocket engines from the Russians. They are once again modernizing their economy, and still have the vast quantity of raw materials. The one thing they don’t have is a lot of people. Don’t expect them to use the old Soviet strategies of massive artillery bombardments and waves of assaults. Putin has forced the Army to change. It is now much more mobile, and better trained. But it will never have the size to seize lots of territory. It’s barely large enough to defend what it already has.

God or bad, Putin isn’t likely to attack unless he thinks we are about to attack him. Instead, he will work to keep the status quo as our industrial and cultural base crumbles.

If he feels we are about to attack Russia, then he will take out the “missile shield” in Poland and Romania, as well as key points in the US. Everyone who thinks a war with Russia would stay in Europe hasn’t been listening to him. He specifically says over and over, an attack on Russia will be be answered with an attack on the US.

John Coster's Evil Twin
John Coster's Evil Twin
August 11, 2016 2:00 pm

Before we make too much fun of those neocons, let’s not forget that they are the only group that ever attacked the United States and got away with it. Having thus proven themselves, they’ve made their candidate the obvious rational choice. I’m mean, who better to defend Amerika from…well I don’t know…America? Besides, Hillary’s multi-million dollar success at influence peddling schemes demonstrates that she is more qualified for political office than any candidate in recent memory. The Donald may have stiffed a few contractors, but that is small potatoes, hardly proof that he is ready for the big leagues. Why choose a reality TV narcissist when you can have an extremely accomplished sociopath, one who will not hesitate to destroy whole nations? Besides, flooding Europe with refugees will teach those uppity krauts and frogs to forget all this nationalist hoopla and show some respect for the new global order. So ya think you’re worried about immigration? Ha! We’ll show ya immigration! HA,HA, Look at that…a couple million Syrians roaming the countryside! We need a real leader like Hillary who won’t let malcontents disrupt society, like that young DNC staffer who got shot down on the street last week. Yea, that little SOB was probably the real source of those email leaks. Served him right. He was probably a commie Sanders supporter anyhow. I want a president who knows how to get people killed, not some playboy who wants to drink vodka shots with Putin. I’m sick of listening to all these bleeding hearts on the Burning Platform.

rhs jr
rhs jr
  John Coster's Evil Twin
August 11, 2016 3:02 pm

Good satire.

prusmc
prusmc
  John Coster's Evil Twin
August 11, 2016 7:24 pm

John Coster’s twin:

The sad fact is the public perceives ( due to media shaping opinion) that Trump is the dangerous lunitic who is likely to start a war.

Stucky
Stucky
August 11, 2016 2:32 pm

I have been singing No War With Russia for years.

I said No War With Russia in one of two reasons to vote for Trump. The other is immigration.

Glad to have Fred on board.

To the maroon saying we should look ar Russia in 19 fucking 39. BWWWAAHAHAHA!! Maybe you ought to look at what Russia accomplished in Syria in just two months …. their military equipment is every bit as good as ours, and better in some cases. Maybe you think Russia is just a regional power?

General
General
August 11, 2016 7:42 pm

Based upon my review of the available facts, the warmongers in the US Federal government are not crazy or stupid enough to want a war with Russia. That does not mean that a war can’t happen (yes, I know double negative) accidently through miscalculations or errors. Such, as a nuke being fired accidently. And yes, that almost happened a few times.

Frankenstein's Monster
Frankenstein's Monster
August 11, 2016 8:05 pm

Just imagine if all the time, energy, and trillions of dollars spent making war and it’s instruments were used for good. Poor demented humans ruining themselves, their fellow species, and their home.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster
August 11, 2016 8:39 pm

Fred makes some good points. Hillary would start WWIII if the voters elect her.

Rob
Rob
August 11, 2016 9:54 pm

I think that Fred is brilliant. Way to go dude.

hardscrabble farmer
hardscrabble farmer
August 12, 2016 6:14 am

Only the dead have seen the end of war…

overthecliff
overthecliff
August 12, 2016 10:59 am

We will not have a war with Russia. It is much to dangerous. neo-cons are evil and crazy but they are not self destructive. What will continue to happen is that the Russians will continue to use surrogates to sucker us into wars and bankrupt us. We are out there by ourselves now, our coalition of paper allies is sitting on the sidelines. They are broke and will give us lip service only.