Posted on 05/19/2024 2:46:10 PM PDT by USA-FRANCE
A Russian victory is an Iranian victory. Moscow and Tehran have formed a military bloc with the aim of defeating the United States and its allies in the Middle East, Europe, and around the world. Russian and Iranian military forces have been fighting alongside one another in Syria for nearly a decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at understandingwar.org ...
Not until you show me where I said Russia is a good neighbor.
You CAN do that, right?
What the heck does this mean?
What's relevant is that Putin is lionizing this mass murderer. Tells us who he is and what his objectives are.As I said you make no sense.
When I see “The Institute For The Study Of War” ...
I see “The Institute For The Military Industrial Complex” ...
So, a Very Biased Opinion.
Awesome, how magnanimous of the Biden regime.
Lol.
You effing kidding me? Try it this way: "Tell me who your heroes are, and I'll tell you you who you are."
Non sequitur there Chad?
Prancing around in latex and high heels and playing piano with his penis is just so heroic of Zelensky, right?
Tells us who you are?
I think we're getting somewhere!
Nope.
You Lie like a Rug.
Yugoslavia wasn’t a member, and we had no business being there.
Nato is a bad neighbor too.
I agree.
Nato is a bad neighbor too.
NATO's neighbors are free to join a Warsaw Pact if they'd like. NATO members are even free to leave NATO.
I know that Russian propagandists have a problem with facts and the recognition of history.
But you are of course not a Russian propagandist.
Thus I’m sure you will not contest, in any way, the indisputable facts I have given you.
They’d be better served by joining neither, both NATO and Russia have had awful track records.
Besides which, in Yugoslavia we were flying cover for Islamic terrorists (KLA).
We had no business being there.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, we have no business being there.
Libya we had no business doing what we did there, Qadaffi was actually cooperating with us and he was rewarded with being murdered by Al-Qeada.
Shocker, we were flying air cover for Islamic terrorists again.
...Yet you have no argument against my points?
I’m not playing word games.
NATO did indeed encroach.
Or did it not expand eastward?
Did it or did it not expand eastwards, yes or no?
That is a Lie.
James Madison, the acknowledged Father of the Constitution, and Three of the Fifty Five authors of the Constitution had read of a very few valuable concepts of law from two French thinkers more than a decade before the US Constitution was written.
That minor essay input was the only French influence on the wording of the Constitution.
You deliberately misrepresent the facts to spread Horse Manure.
Army ships aren’t going to be running through highly contested waters, and they’ll very likely have some kind of escort anywhere they go that has a chance of enemy contact.
Neither Russia nor China have any kind of power projection. I’ve already mentioned Russia’s carrier. China’s are barely more useful, they have no blue water operations experience, no ewacs, no nukes, not much group integration (especially asw). China’s carriers would be hiding in dock in any real conflict. Russia’s isn’t even worth wasting a 500 pounder on.
A small threat would be submarines, but as I’ve mentioned, their stuff isn’t as good as ours, and we know where all of theirs are.
The only real maybe threat is land-based missile/drone saturation attacks on near-shore operations. That’d be about it.
The Founding Fathers were impregnated by the French Enlightenment. It’s common knowledge. In parts it guided their political moves.
The French Enlightenment in America: Essays on the Times of the Founding Fathershttps://muse.jhu.edu/pub/164/oa_monograph/chapter/3022292
The eleven essays originally published in 1984 under the title The French Enlightenment in America: Essays on the Time of the Founding Fathers, here reprinted, are both compelling and enjoyable. Paul Merrill Spurlin’s general hypothesis is crystal clear: French philosophes had a large influence in America—especially from 1760 to 1800. The writings of Voltaire, Diderot, Raynal, d’Alembert, Helvétius, d’Holbach, Condorcet, Bayle, Fontenelle, and Rousseau were received enthusiastically by leaders in the colonies and the new nation.
But the “Founding Fathers” absorbed more than daring political principles and moral maxims, Spurlin argues. They were also enthralled by entirely new visions of the natural world. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, as chapter 5 shows, made Buffon’s Histoire naturelle (1749) very popular—including, of course, Buffon’s wacky notion that every living being in America is either smaller or weaker than its European counterpart.
French intellectuals exerted an influence on the colonists first, and the founders later. But this could only happen, as Spurlin also argues, because French and Americans already belonged in “the same general climate of ideas.” These long-gone people were members of an “Atlantic community,” he says, a rather exclusive club of elite men who understood each other, though they rarely spoke the same language. An example: Montesquieu’s tripartite separation of powers—“the sacred maxim of free government,” as James Madison called it—was “an important article” of American political thought “long before 1776” (98).
Comparing Russia to NATO is moronic.
Saving Muslims in Yugoslavia, or anywhere, is a bad idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.