Posted on 07/01/2015 3:07:23 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
It was in August 2014 that the real danger began, and that we heard the first warnings of war. That month, unmarked Russian troops covertly invaded eastern Ukraine, where the separatist conflict had grown out of its control. The Russian air force began harassing the neighboring Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are members of NATO. The US pledged that it would uphold its commitment to defend those countries as if they were American soil, and later staged military exercises a few hundred yards from Russia's border.
Both sides came to believe that the other had more drastic intentions. Moscow is convinced the West is bent on isolating, subjugating, or outright destroying Russia. One in three Russians now believe the US may invade. Western nations worry, with reason, that Russia could use the threat of war, or provoke an actual conflict, to fracture NATO and its commitment to defend Eastern Europe. This would break the status quo order that has peacefully unified Europe under Western leadership, and kept out Russian influence, for 25 years.
Fearing the worst of one another, the US and Russia have pledged to go to war, if necessary, to defend their interests in the Eastern European borderlands. They have positioned military forces and conducted chest-thumping exercises, hoping to scare one another down. Putin, warning repeatedly that he would use nuclear weapons in a conflict, began forward-deploying nuclear-capable missiles and bombers.
Europe today looks disturbingly similar to the Europe of just over 100 years ago, on the eve of World War I...
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
I would be willing to fight that war for that purpose.
With Russia supporting Iran and Syria (and the US supporting the Muzziwe Broz, et. al.) we'll never get there.
Agreed
I don't see any other version of WWIII, though the Chinese may want some war eventually (more likely a virtual war).
Unknown, I personally do not believe the Chinese want any war that interferes with a nice healthy profit, Chinese territorial expansion is strictly for (future) profit, risk for reward.
A matter for prayer to the Lord, His Will be done.
I love Gay jokes probably more than you, but the "Homo Military" has not yet affected our ability to execute or the general good quality of our weapons systems. The difficulty comes with the specialization/availability of certain critical items, due to Obama/Rat logistical decisions and policies. Currently one missile getting through can be a Task Force killer.
There is a real question of if Obama or most Western leaders would fight a major war where there is any chance they would be incinerated as part of it.
Be assured these Ruling Elitists have the best protection and shelters that American taxpayers can buy (and admire from the outside), they aren't concerned in the slightest.
The question comes to will the American Military be allowed to fight?
Were the American Military personnel that were assigned/available to protect Ambassador Christopher Stevens allowed to protect and extract him and other Embassy personnel?
I could go on with numerous examples of Socialist DemoRat Presidential mismanagement for personal political gain, that resulted in victories for America's most dangerous enemies, but it's not necessary.
Because of OBAMA, our military is a “GHOST” of it once was. We are in debt to the tune of 18 trillion. The European nations doesn’t have the military to fight the Russian jaugernaut. Unless we use nuclear, and I don’t think we will. Don’t forget, China is just lurking in the Pacific, waiting for us to get involved in another European war. This is like the 1930’s all over again, except in the 1930’s we were not in debt as we are today. So, unless we have a “SECRET WEAPON” that will end the start of WW3, we will be in for one hell of a generation or two.
Under Nixon and Reagan, I learned to fight Russians including as part of NATO, and to stand up to them, and that was when they had the ability to defeat us.
I hope that you weren’t in the American Navy, because you are a pro-Russia surrender monkey.
Your one note seems to be that we all still have our nuclear weapons, and that Putin wants himself and Russia to disappear in a cloud of nuclear smoke for some reason, so we better surrender, to keep him from going out in a blaze of glory.
If WW3 kicks off I’m opening my own front.
Well, you didn't learn much from Reagan who NEGOTIATED the hard line Communist Party controlled Soviet Union into dissolving the Soviet Union and standing down strategic missile targeting, without firing a shot or making an offensive military threat.
Reagan even offered to supply and construct an identical Star Wars anti ballistic missile system to protect Russia from any strategic ballistic missile attack.
Reagan was honorable, trustworthy and valued American lives, things you should strive to emulate rather than counterfeit in your support of a Fascist coup.
Cool, with your own front you can pick your own enemies, instead of letting some Communist, Socialist, Fascist or Muslim pick 'em for you.
And you are a surrender monkey who doesn’t remember Reagan and the 1980s.
The 1980s under Reagan were wild, and so were our aggressive actions in Europe, and him challenging the Russians everywhere, from Afghanistan to Latin America, to Grenada, and Europe.
Europe was in incredible turmoil with massive anti-Reagan demonstrations backed and funded by the Russians, a hostile anti-American, American press, sounding like you, terrorists attacking us and killing us in nightclubs, having to walk through Frankfurt airport as the bomb damage was being repaired, terrorists being caught with the plans of our posts, us doing the largest reforgers in history, the 100s of thousands of us, and the millions of the rest of NATO, and the massive buildup for war.
You should have seen the tension among the American GIs during Reagan’s standing up to Russia, especially in the Fulda Gap.
All of us, and our NATO allies were going high speed and were ready for war at any minute, knowing that Russia would either attack, or blink.
Luckily, they broke, and once that weakness was revealed, then they started collapsing internally.
Reagan barely saved the world from the 1984/85 war that we felt that Jimmy Carter had set up, with his late 1970s actions, we knew that if the Russians missed that window, then they would not get another such window for many years to come, and Reagan and our aggression, evidently closed that window enough, that they couldn’t risk making their thrust.
I left off Africa, Reagan was taking it to the commies in Africa.
"All those mechanisms were disrupted or eroded," he said. "That [infrastructure] has been degraded since the end of the Cold War because the common perception is that we don’t need it anymore."
Russians don't trust our government... Americans are starting not to trust our government either...
Reagan barely saved the world...
You give Reagan far less credit than he deserves.
Luck had NOTHING to do with it, Reagan's genius, planning, strategy and tactics were entirely responsible.
Reagan planned the SALT II talks refusal in order to convince all the Soviet negotiators that the US could economically continue to support the world class US military and the entire civilian economy as well, while the Soviet Union could not, that was the weakness, economic. In order to get the Soviet Union to stand down and significantly disarm, Reagan suggested dissolution of the Union and pledged protection of the member Republics AND the core Russian Republics. Then Reagan submitted a plan to accomplish those ends.
All of this was prepared in advance, by Reagan, and was NOT a matter of luck.
It is true that Reagan stood firm and used force against Communists many times, but he did not threaten and bluster, and his strategic dissolution of the Soviet Union was the crowning achievement of any politician in modern history.
Additionally, Reagan never spent American lives capriciously, or any lives for that matter, for the purpose of bluster, ego or self service.
And remember, Reagan was standing up to the Soviet Union not "Russia", a completely different entity than the Russian Federation. You should get your players straight.
Points made, you might be interested in post #53.
Get off it you little Putin surrender monkey troll, I give Reagan all the credit, it is you that keep trying to rewrite Reagan history as him nicely persuading the Russians not to conquer the world, rather than how he really did it, by being incredibly aggressive and conducting a massive war time like military build up.
Most of the men who served under Reagan, remember how we were getting in their face in every way possible.
Reagan was ready to go all the way, all the way, and we Reagan GIs, and the Russians knew it, you pro-Russia guys are trying to convince us that Obama is being too tough, and that Reagan would be rolling over while Russia invades up to NATO borders and now threatens NATO itself, and tries to rebuild it's evil empire.
Threats that you guys support, as you speak of letting Russia carve out some of the smaller NATO countries and enslave them, while the rest of us turn our backs on our alliance, and cower, hoping that Russia will at some point feel that they have enough of us.
And you can tell the Poles and the other new NATO countries that they were not slaves to Russia, but volunteer members in the "Soviet" Empire.
Get it going right where it should start, it's no skin off my nose.
Just think of the glory riding in that victory parade with Obama at your side. Go for it, ya can't lose.
We are trying to prevent war in Europe, by not taking your advice to surrender some of our NATO nations to Putin, and not praising him for invading peaceful European nations to get a better position to threaten us from.
As far as Obama, you think that he is being too tough by your standards, and in your nuttery, you think that Reagan would be weaker than Obama.
The reality is that Reagan would be moving men and troops in much larger numbers, and dealing with Putin much more harshly, than the man that you whine is being too strong.
So Obama and NATO are too tough for you, wow.
You're obviously the toughest hombre on the planet, and Obama maybe a hundred men down.
Men like the both of you cannot ever prevent a war, you are too tough, and war is impossible for you to lose, so you always start one.
Reagan was not weaker than Obama, but he was far more intelligent, and smarter beats tough every time.
I only stated that Russia has limited capabilities with several new but not battle tested weapons systems, and serious Strategic Thermonuclear weapons capabilities.
So go ahead, move troops and arms as you see fit, and start it up, you are so tough that Putin will fold like a house of cards, all ya gotta do is pull the pin.
Wow, you really are a traitorous little Putin follower.
Reagan would freak you out he would be so aggressive against Putin, Reagan would have never let Putin go as far as he has and threaten the world like he has, and threaten us and our GIs out in the field like he has.
Yet you whine that even Obama is too strong.
It’s a little early for you to be surrendering, and you don’t seem to understand why it is necessary to have men and equipment where it is needed in NATO, to protect us from Russia.
Need someone else to do it for ya?
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.