Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: No One Wants To Talk About It Because It Was A United Nations War

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default No One Wants To Talk About It Because It Was A United Nations War

    The Korean War Atrocities No One Wants to Talk About
    June 26, 2020 | 12:01 am
    Jim Bovard

    https://www.theamericanconservative....to-talk-about/

    President Truman correctly fought the Korean War when he snookered the Soviet Union:

    Truman jumped on the Soviet Union’s failure to attend a Security Council meeting; so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the United Nations; hence, a U.N. Police Action rather than a declared war. Had the Soviets attended the one and only Security Council meeting they ever missed they would have vetoed Truman’s military opposition to North Korea’s aggression. Today, China has a veto on the permanent Security Council. Trump can be sure the Chicoms will not be missing any SC meetings.

    Incidentally, President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the U.N.’s approval. Every choice Truman had remains the same for President Trump with one exception. Trump has to consider the descendants of Vietnam War traitors in Congress are much stronger today than were their forefathers were in the 1960s.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post2779843

    United Nations Communists had no choice but to remain silent while the Korean War was being fought. American Communists (DEMOCRATS & AMERICANS IN NAME ONLY AINO) will never say a bad word about the United Nations. That is why there were no anti-war demonstrations.

    Anti-war demonstrators were created for the Vietnam War when U.N.-loving American Communists came out in droves to oppose a preemptive war of self-defense. Every ‘AMERICAN’ traitor falsely claimed the moral high ground based solely on the United Nations opposing the Vietnam War.

    Before John Kerry was elected to anything he conspired with congressional Democrats to defeat this country. Between them, they prolonged the Vietnam War long enough for North Vietnamese Communists to kill more Americans than the actual number of civilians the U.S. Military killed in Korea.

    Judge the military strategy for yourself in an article that is tilted towards codifying the U.N.’s definition of war crimes:

    June 25th was the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought bravely in that war, and almost 37,000 were killed. But the media is ignoring perhaps the war’s most important lesson: the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

    The U.S. Military cannot commit war crimes.

    war crime (noun)
    plural noun: war crimes

    an action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war.

    Individual soldiers might commit a crime. If they are caught and charged they are punished within the framework of military justice —— not punished by a United Nations tribunal.


    During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements about how the U.S. military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the U.S. was thwarting Red aggression. When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that, “war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.”

    In 1999, forty-six years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. U.S. troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

    The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purportedly proving that the No Gun Ri killings were merely “an unfortunate tragedy” caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

    President Bill Clinton announced his “regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri.” In a January 2001 interview, Clinton was asked why he used “regret” instead of “apology.” He declared, “I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the government had participated in something that was terrible.” Clinton specified that there was no evidence of “wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible.”

    In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials: “If refugees do appear from north of U.S. lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot.” The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccio’s letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

    Conway-Lanz’s 2006 book Collateral Damage quoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was “wholly defensible.” An official Army history noted: “Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night.” A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that “groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.”

    In 2007, the Army recited its original denial: “No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field.” But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives: “More than a dozen documents—in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are ‘fair game,’ for example, and order them to ‘shoot all refugees coming across river’—were found by the AP in the investigators’ own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the Army’s 300-page public report.”

    A former Air Force Pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed “all pilots interviewed … knew nothing about such orders.” Evidence also surfaced of other massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the Army’s insistence, “fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.”

    Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese Army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950. U.S. Commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a “desert.” The U.S. military eventually “expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies.” In a scoring method that foreshadowed the Vietnam war body counts, Air Force press releases touted the “square footage” of “enemy-held buildings” that it flattened. General Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements: “We burned down every town in North Korea… and some in South Korea, too.” A million civilians may have been killed during the war, and a South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities.

    The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left truth to the historians, not the policymakers. The facts about No Gun Ri finally slipped out—ten presidencies later. Even more damaging, the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up until after four more U.S. wars. If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

    Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey warned, “The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.” The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. military interventions has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi government’s role in financing the hijackers (15 of 19 were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of U.S. killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and Wikileaks exposed them in 2010. There is likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

    When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the U.S. into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. The blood of civilian victims of U.S. wars is the political version of disappearing ink. But the kinfolk and neighbors of those victims could pursue vengeance regardless of whether cover-ups con the American people.


    Finally, American Communists (DEMOCRATS) always wrap themselves in their flag when they send the U.S. Military off to fight U.N. peacekeeping missions, or send them to fight democracy-building U.N. wars like Afghanistan.

    NOTE: Afghanistan is a United Nations war fought to install a democracy. In 18 years the U.S. military spent more time building schools and roads in order to promote the U.N.’s democracy garbage then they spent killing Muslim terrorists. I doubt very much if President Trump can pull out of Afghanistan because a complete withdrawal will be a defeat for the United Nations and for the Democracy Movement.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...33#post3231533

    p.s. Then-Senator Biden advocated the 2001 war in Afghanistan: "Whatever it takes, we should do it."

    “We” to a Democrat means the United Nations should do it while Americans do the fighting.

    p.p.s. Come November remember that former senators, Joe Biden and Vietnam War traitor John Kerry, are conspiring again:

    John Kerry hosting virtual campaign events for Biden
    By J. Edward Moreno - 06/17/20 01:16 PM EDT

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ents-for-biden
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    32,807
    Thanks
    19,700
    Thanked 9,438 Times in 7,728 Posts
    Groans
    832
    Groaned 509 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Korean War Atrocities No One Wants to Talk About
    June 26, 2020 | 12:01 am
    Jim Bovard

    https://www.theamericanconservative....to-talk-about/

    President Truman correctly fought the Korean War when he snookered the Soviet Union:

    Truman jumped on the Soviet Union’s failure to attend a Security Council meeting; so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the United Nations; hence, a U.N. Police Action rather than a declared war. Had the Soviets attended the one and only Security Council meeting they ever missed they would have vetoed Truman’s military opposition to North Korea’s aggression. Today, China has a veto on the permanent Security Council. Trump can be sure the Chicoms will not be missing any SC meetings.

    Incidentally, President Truman was right in stopping Communism, but he was wrong in getting the U.N.’s approval. Every choice Truman had remains the same for President Trump with one exception. Trump has to consider the descendants of Vietnam War traitors in Congress are much stronger today than were their forefathers were in the 1960s.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post2779843

    United Nations Communists had no choice but to remain silent while the Korean War was being fought. American Communists (DEMOCRATS & AMERICANS IN NAME ONLY AINO) will never say a bad word about the United Nations. That is why there were no anti-war demonstrations.

    Anti-war demonstrators were created for the Vietnam War when U.N.-loving American Communists came out in droves to oppose a preemptive war of self-defense. Every ‘AMERICAN’ traitor falsely claimed the moral high ground based solely on the United Nations opposing the Vietnam War.

    Before John Kerry was elected to anything he conspired with congressional Democrats to defeat this country. Between them, they prolonged the Vietnam War long enough for North Vietnamese Communists to kill more Americans than the actual number of civilians the U.S. Military killed in Korea.

    Judge the military strategy for yourself in an article that is tilted towards codifying the U.N.’s definition of war crimes:

    June 25th was the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought bravely in that war, and almost 37,000 were killed. But the media is ignoring perhaps the war’s most important lesson: the U.S. government has almost unlimited sway to hide its own war crimes.

    The U.S. Military cannot commit war crimes.

    war crime (noun)
    plural noun: war crimes

    an action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war.

    Individual soldiers might commit a crime. If they are caught and charged they are punished within the framework of military justice —— not punished by a United Nations tribunal.


    During the Korean War, Americans were deluged with official pronouncements about how the U.S. military was taking all possible steps to protect innocent civilians. Because the evils of communism were self-evident, few questions arose about how the U.S. was thwarting Red aggression. When a U.S. Senate subcommittee appointed in 1953 by Sen. Joseph McCarthy investigated Korean War atrocities, the committee explicitly declared that, “war crimes were defined as those acts committed by enemy nations.”

    In 1999, forty-six years after the cease fire in Korea, the Associated Press exposed a 1950 massacre of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri. U.S. troops drove Koreans out of their village and forced them to remain on a railroad embankment. Beginning on July 25, 1950, the refugees were strafed by U.S. planes and machine guns over the following three days. Hundreds of people, mostly women and children, were killed. The 1999 AP story was widely denounced by American politicians and some media outlets as a slander on American troops.

    The Pentagon promised an exhaustive investigation. In January 2001, the Pentagon released a 300-page report purportedly proving that the No Gun Ri killings were merely “an unfortunate tragedy” caused by trigger-happy soldiers frightened by approaching refugees.

    President Bill Clinton announced his “regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri.” In a January 2001 interview, Clinton was asked why he used “regret” instead of “apology.” He declared, “I believe that the people who looked into it could not conclude that there was a deliberate act, decided at a high enough level in the military hierarchy, to acknowledge that, in effect, the government had participated in something that was terrible.” Clinton specified that there was no evidence of “wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible.”

    In 2005, Sahr Conway-Lanz, a Harvard University doctoral student, discovered a letter in the National Archives from the U.S. ambassador to Korea, John Muccio, sent to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the day the No Gun Ri massacre commenced. Muccio summarized a new policy from a meeting between U.S. military and South Korean officials: “If refugees do appear from north of U.S. lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot.” The new policy was radioed to Army units around Korea on the morning the No Gun Ri massacre began. The U.S. military feared that North Korean troops might be hiding amidst the refugees. The Pentagon initially claimed that its investigators never saw Muccio’s letter but it was in the specific research file used for its report.

    Conway-Lanz’s 2006 book Collateral Damage quoted an official U.S. Navy history of the first six months of the Korean War stating that the policy of strafing civilians was “wholly defensible.” An official Army history noted: “Eventually, it was decided to shoot anyone who moved at night.” A report for the aircraft carrier USS Valley Forge justified attacking civilians because the Army insisted that “groups of more than eight to ten people were to be considered troops, and were to be attacked.”

    In 2007, the Army recited its original denial: “No policy purporting to authorize soldiers to shoot refugees was ever promulgated to soldiers in the field.” But the Associated Press exposed more dirt from the U.S. archives: “More than a dozen documents—in which high-ranking U.S. officers tell troops that refugees are ‘fair game,’ for example, and order them to ‘shoot all refugees coming across river’—were found by the AP in the investigators’ own archived files after the 2001 inquiry. None of those documents was disclosed in the Army’s 300-page public report.”

    A former Air Force Pilot told investigators that his plane and three others strafed refugees at the same time of the No Gun Ri massacre; the official report claimed “all pilots interviewed … knew nothing about such orders.” Evidence also surfaced of other massacres like No Gun Ri. On September 1, 1950, the destroyer USS DeHaven, at the Army’s insistence, “fired on a seaside refugee encampment at Pohang, South Korea. Survivors say 100 to 200 people were killed.”

    Slaughtering civilians en masse became routine procedure after the Chinese Army intervened in the Korean war in late 1950. U.S. Commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur spoke of turning North Korean-held territory into a “desert.” The U.S. military eventually “expanded its definition of a military target to any structure that could shelter enemy troops or supplies.” In a scoring method that foreshadowed the Vietnam war body counts, Air Force press releases touted the “square footage” of “enemy-held buildings” that it flattened. General Curtis LeMay summarized the achievements: “We burned down every town in North Korea… and some in South Korea, too.” A million civilians may have been killed during the war, and a South Korean government Truth and Reconciliation Commission uncovered many previously unreported atrocities.

    The Pentagon strategy on Korean War atrocities succeeded because it left truth to the historians, not the policymakers. The facts about No Gun Ri finally slipped out—ten presidencies later. Even more damaging, the Rules of Engagement for killing Korean civilians were covered up until after four more U.S. wars. If U.S. policy for slaying Korean refugees had been exposed during that war, it might have curtailed similar killings in Vietnam (many of which were not revealed until decades after the war).

    Former congressman and decorated Korean War veteran Pete McCloskey warned, “The government will always lie about embarrassing matters.” The same shenanigans permeate other U.S. wars. The secrecy and deceit surrounding U.S. military interventions has had catastrophic consequences in this century. The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to justify attacking Iraq in 2003, and it was not until 2016 that the U.S. government revealed documents exposing the Saudi government’s role in financing the hijackers (15 of 19 were Saudi citizens). The Pentagon covered up the vast majority of U.S. killings of Iraqi civilians until Bradley Manning and Wikileaks exposed them in 2010. There is likely reams of evidence of duplicity and intentional slaughter of civilians in U.S. government files on its endlessly confused and contradictory Syrian intervention.

    When politicians or generals appear itching to pull the U.S. into another foreign war, remember that truth is routinely the first casualty. The blood of civilian victims of U.S. wars is the political version of disappearing ink. But the kinfolk and neighbors of those victims could pursue vengeance regardless of whether cover-ups con the American people.


    Finally, American Communists (DEMOCRATS) always wrap themselves in their flag when they send the U.S. Military off to fight U.N. peacekeeping missions, or send them to fight democracy-building U.N. wars like Afghanistan.

    NOTE: Afghanistan is a United Nations war fought to install a democracy. In 18 years the U.S. military spent more time building schools and roads in order to promote the U.N.’s democracy garbage then they spent killing Muslim terrorists. I doubt very much if President Trump can pull out of Afghanistan because a complete withdrawal will be a defeat for the United Nations and for the Democracy Movement.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...33#post3231533

    p.s. Then-Senator Biden advocated the 2001 war in Afghanistan: "Whatever it takes, we should do it."

    “We” to a Democrat means the United Nations should do it while Americans do the fighting.

    p.p.s. Come November remember that former senators, Joe Biden and Vietnam War traitor John Kerry, are conspiring again:

    John Kerry hosting virtual campaign events for Biden
    By J. Edward Moreno - 06/17/20 01:16 PM EDT

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ents-for-biden
    Fuck the UN. Truman should have let our boys wage real war and there would be no North Korea, only a unified Korea with a DMZ at the north border with China.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Dillon For This Post:

    Flanders (06-28-2020)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1,417
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 71 Times in 70 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    We take no prisoners.


  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Finally, American Communists (DEMOCRATS) always wrap themselves in their flag when they send the U.S. Military off to fight U.N. peacekeeping missions, or send them to fight democracy-building U.N. wars like Afghanistan.

    NOTE:
    Afghanistan is a United Nations war fought to install a democracy. In 18 years the U.S. military spent more time building schools and roads in order to promote the U.N.’s democracy garbage then they spent killing Muslim terrorists. I doubt very much if President Trump can pull out of Afghanistan because a complete withdrawal will be a defeat for the United Nations and for the Democracy Movement.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...33#post3231533

    p.s. Then-Senator Biden advocated the 2001 war in Afghanistan: "Whatever it takes, we should do it."

    “We” to a Democrat means the United Nations should do it while Americans do the fighting.
    In the next debate President Trump should talk about Biden’s Afghanistan policy:


    Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate hasn’t helped him in the polls, and it has highlighted Obama’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy and national security, but more than that it has given Republicans additional grounds to question Obama’s judgment. At first glance the addition of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man with 35 years in the Senate, might seem the perfect balance to a ticket headed by a candidate with very little experience. The fit might look perfect on paper, but the reality does not quite live up to the promise. A look at Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy judgment says a lot more about a possible Obama presidency than the fact that Biden has been in the Senate for 3 ½ decades.

    The Hill reported of Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this week: Biden “got confused about some very simple military terminology” stating that Obama advocated for “two additional battalions in Afghanistan” when “in fact, Obama called for two extra brigades – a small verbal slip, but a significant numerical one. A brigade is composed of a varying number of battalions.” Although an embarrassing mistake for a man hailed for his national security knowledge, that slip of the tongue was probably just that, a verbal slip.


    Friday, August 29, 2008
    A Snapshot of Joe Biden's Foreign Policy Judgment
    by Lorie Byrd

    http://townhall.com/Columnists/Lorie...olicy_judgment

    Shortly after 9-11-2001 then-Senator Biden called for a United Nations led coalition to fight the war in Afghanistan. Since then he flipped-flopped about ending this country’s longest war, while he consistently defends the United Nations and democracy.

    Biden is the same guy that also defended United Nations opposition to a U.S. preemptive war of self-defense in Vietnam. Prolonging the Vietnam War long enough to get get several thousand more Americans killed was Biden’s first, and most blood soaked, anti-America venture into policy policy.

    Bottom lime: President Trump has a golden opportunity to spin Biden around like a top before Biden's brain shuts down completely.

    Biden sees an America waiting with bated breath for him to challenge Trump.

    Convinced of his own wonderfulness, Joe Biden trots around the talk shows as if on a perpetual victory lap. What has he won? Who knows? It speaks to the embarrassing emptiness of liberal culture that such a buffoon is accorded the status of a victorious statesman. Encouraged in this delusion, Biden allows himself such modest musings as: “I have regret that I am not president. Because I think there’s so much opportunity. I think America is incredibly well-positioned.”

    Still the blarney-ridden, puffed-chest phony with hair plugs of his empty senatorial days, Biden finds Trump very threatening to his manhood and likes to shadow-box him in the company of such tough questioners as Stephen Colbert. On the campaign trail last year, Biden said that he didn’t want to debate Trump but to beat him up: “I wish I were in high school, I could take him behind the gym. That’s what I wish.”

    Hey, that is not very presidential. No matter; talk show hosts find Biden’s juvenile bragging impressive and treat him like he is Churchill in retirement for the great accomplishment of having served as the gaffe-ridden veep to a disastrous president. Crowds roar as he passes off the most feeble platitudes as profundities. The New York Times declares his new memoir “impressive” high literature in a fawning interview, adorned with a photo of a seated Biden looking sage.

    One might have thought, given his creepy, handsy penchant for sidling up to women, young and old, and whispering in their ears, a feminist talk show host or two would give him a hard time. But they don’t. The Oprahs and Ellens treat him as impeccably avuncular. He is one of the good guys! No need to put his past under a microscope! Never mind the pictures of him cuddling up to female bikers (as other bikers glare at him angrily) and draping himself, Jimmy Savile-like, over the wives and children of senators and cabinet officials. In a nod to the tradition of immunity-through-politics, Biden proudly announced recently that he has teamed up with Lady Gaga to fight the scourge of male misbehavior. “Give me a break,” he says to his generation’s Don Drapers.

    As for his 2020 ambitions, “something’s got to happen, man,” he says to Vanity Fair, hinting that he might yet grace America with the gift of himself again. According to Politico, Dems find this prospect exciting: “The chatter has gotten so intense in some corners that there’s even scuttlebutt among Democratic operatives that Biden could launch his candidacy with California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate from Day One.” Biden is one of the hottest tickets around, says Politico:

    With former President Barack Obama largely sitting out politics and many Democrats wary of reaching out to the Clintons, Biden’s appeal as a party leader has grown since January. He has received at least five requests for endorsements or events each week, sources close to him say.

    Biden is planning to spend the first quarter of 2018 focused on fundraising for old friends in the Senate, with possible additional appearances for state parties or directly backing House candidates. Twelve of the 14 candidates he backed in Tuesday’s election won, including a Washington state Senate race that flipped the chamber to Democrats and the Manchester, New Hampshire, mayor’s race. He also supported, Danica Roem, the transgender candidate who won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. Roem first met Biden after traveling to Wilmington, Delaware, for the Beau Biden wake.

    In the midst of all this smug progressivism, in the midst of all his bi-coastal jaunts — officiating at gay weddings, doing PSAs with Hollywood celebrities, picking up awards from climate-change activists — Biden insists that he remains “Scranton Joe,” the ideal candidate for blue-collar Dems disaffected by their party’s insularity. In response to Megyn Kelly’s comment that Trump won the Rust Belt, he said, “They love me more.… They call me ‘Middle Class Joe.’ I understand what built this country.”

    Biden oozes “authenticity,” purrs the ruling class. How that accolade has crystallized around Biden is remarkable given that his first presidential run was blown up by plagiarism scandal in which he had to borrow the words of a British socialist to describe the meaning of his hard-scrabble youth in Pennsylvania. Biden has all the authenticity of a pol who urges his good friend “Chuck” to stand up without knowing that he is a paraplegic.

    Well, it would be amusing — Biden vs. Trump, and even better if another empty suit like Kamala Harris joins him. Drunk on the media’s praise, Biden may take the plunge. (Saturday Night Live, to its credit, isn’t joining in this chorus, mocking the notion that “it’s Biden time” in a skit last week about a geriatric, stale Democratic Party.) But if he does run, one suspects his faux-pensive “regret that I am not president” would quickly give way to a real regret that he didn’t quit while he was ahead.

    Run, Joe, Run
    George Neumayr
    November 15, 2017, 12:05 am

    https://spectator.org/run-joe-run/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (10-08-2020)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,639 Times in 1,980 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    ..so he took the opportunity to stop Communist expansion by manipulating the United Nations;

    [/img]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wor dpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2Fthen-a-miracle-occurs-logic-1050x700.jpg
    How, exactly did he "manipulate the UN"? Did he push the "Manipulate the UN" button?


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    NOTE: Afghanistan is a United Nations war fought to install a democracy. In 18 years the U.S. military spent more time building schools and roads in order to promote the U.N.’s democracy garbage then they spent killing Muslim terrorists.
    Instead of focusing on how time was spent, the focus should be on the $Trillions literally wasted. Imagine if instead of flushing that money down the shit-can we had simply given every American-owned small business an $80,000 cash infusion.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Imagine if instead of flushing that money down the shit-can we had simply given every American-owned small business an $80,000 cash infusion.
    That's not the proper function of the federal government, is it?

    How about instead of waging endless wars to enrich people like Dianne Feinstein's husband, we give a rebate to the people and businesses who actually paid taxes?

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,639 Times in 1,980 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    That's not the proper function of the federal government, is it?
    Nope. Not at all. It was just an "Imagine if." I like to leave little clues when I pose them ... like the words "Imagine if."

    My intent was to show that if you were to compare/contrast the results of how we spent those $Trillions vs. if we had instead used that money in the manner described, you would see a stark difference highlighting our wastefulness, which is my point that I was supporting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    How about instead of waging endless wars to enrich people like Dianne Feinstein's husband, we give a rebate to the people and businesses who actually paid taxes?
    Sure. The latter policy is much better than the former. Yes.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Nope. Not at all. It was just an "Imagine if." I like to leave little clues when I pose them ... like the words "Imagine if." My intent was to show that if you were to compare/contrast the results of how we spent those $Trillions vs. if we had instead used that money in the manner described, you would see a stark difference highlighting our wastefulness, which is my point that I was supporting. Sure. The latter policy is much better than the former. Yes.

    We are in agreement, then.

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,331
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,639 Times in 1,980 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    We are in agreement, then.
    I would say so. It is not the government's job to be redistributing the wealth of We the People.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    It is not the government's job to be redistributing the wealth of We the People.
    Not according to the Constitution, as far as I can tell.

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    In the next debate President Trump should talk about Biden’s Afghanistan policy:


    Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate hasn’t helped him in the polls, and it has highlighted Obama’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy and national security, but more than that it has given Republicans additional grounds to question Obama’s judgment. At first glance the addition of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man with 35 years in the Senate, might seem the perfect balance to a ticket headed by a candidate with very little experience. The fit might look perfect on paper, but the reality does not quite live up to the promise. A look at Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy judgment says a lot more about a possible Obama presidency than the fact that Biden has been in the Senate for 3 ½ decades.

    The Hill reported of Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this week: Biden “got confused about some very simple military terminology” stating that Obama advocated for “two additional battalions in Afghanistan” when “in fact, Obama called for two extra brigades – a small verbal slip, but a significant numerical one. A brigade is composed of a varying number of battalions.” Although an embarrassing mistake for a man hailed for his national security knowledge, that slip of the tongue was probably just that, a verbal slip.


    Friday, August 29, 2008
    A Snapshot of Joe Biden's Foreign Policy Judgment
    by Lorie Byrd

    http://townhall.com/Columnists/Lorie...olicy_judgment

    Shortly after 9-11-2001 then-Senator Biden called for a United Nations led coalition to fight the war in Afghanistan. Since then he flipped-flopped about ending this country’s longest war, while he consistently defends the United Nations and democracy.

    Biden is the same guy that also defended United Nations opposition to a U.S. preemptive war of self-defense in Vietnam. Prolonging the Vietnam War long enough to get get several thousand more Americans killed was Biden’s first, and most blood soaked, anti-America venture into policy policy.

    Bottom lime: President Trump has a golden opportunity to spin Biden around like a top before Biden's brain shuts down completely.

    Biden sees an America waiting with bated breath for him to challenge Trump.

    Convinced of his own wonderfulness, Joe Biden trots around the talk shows as if on a perpetual victory lap. What has he won? Who knows? It speaks to the embarrassing emptiness of liberal culture that such a buffoon is accorded the status of a victorious statesman. Encouraged in this delusion, Biden allows himself such modest musings as: “I have regret that I am not president. Because I think there’s so much opportunity. I think America is incredibly well-positioned.”

    Still the blarney-ridden, puffed-chest phony with hair plugs of his empty senatorial days, Biden finds Trump very threatening to his manhood and likes to shadow-box him in the company of such tough questioners as Stephen Colbert. On the campaign trail last year, Biden said that he didn’t want to debate Trump but to beat him up: “I wish I were in high school, I could take him behind the gym. That’s what I wish.”

    Hey, that is not very presidential. No matter; talk show hosts find Biden’s juvenile bragging impressive and treat him like he is Churchill in retirement for the great accomplishment of having served as the gaffe-ridden veep to a disastrous president. Crowds roar as he passes off the most feeble platitudes as profundities. The New York Times declares his new memoir “impressive” high literature in a fawning interview, adorned with a photo of a seated Biden looking sage.

    One might have thought, given his creepy, handsy penchant for sidling up to women, young and old, and whispering in their ears, a feminist talk show host or two would give him a hard time. But they don’t. The Oprahs and Ellens treat him as impeccably avuncular. He is one of the good guys! No need to put his past under a microscope! Never mind the pictures of him cuddling up to female bikers (as other bikers glare at him angrily) and draping himself, Jimmy Savile-like, over the wives and children of senators and cabinet officials. In a nod to the tradition of immunity-through-politics, Biden proudly announced recently that he has teamed up with Lady Gaga to fight the scourge of male misbehavior. “Give me a break,” he says to his generation’s Don Drapers.

    As for his 2020 ambitions, “something’s got to happen, man,” he says to Vanity Fair, hinting that he might yet grace America with the gift of himself again. According to Politico, Dems find this prospect exciting: “The chatter has gotten so intense in some corners that there’s even scuttlebutt among Democratic operatives that Biden could launch his candidacy with California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate from Day One.” Biden is one of the hottest tickets around, says Politico:

    With former President Barack Obama largely sitting out politics and many Democrats wary of reaching out to the Clintons, Biden’s appeal as a party leader has grown since January. He has received at least five requests for endorsements or events each week, sources close to him say.

    Biden is planning to spend the first quarter of 2018 focused on fundraising for old friends in the Senate, with possible additional appearances for state parties or directly backing House candidates. Twelve of the 14 candidates he backed in Tuesday’s election won, including a Washington state Senate race that flipped the chamber to Democrats and the Manchester, New Hampshire, mayor’s race. He also supported, Danica Roem, the transgender candidate who won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. Roem first met Biden after traveling to Wilmington, Delaware, for the Beau Biden wake.

    In the midst of all this smug progressivism, in the midst of all his bi-coastal jaunts — officiating at gay weddings, doing PSAs with Hollywood celebrities, picking up awards from climate-change activists — Biden insists that he remains “Scranton Joe,” the ideal candidate for blue-collar Dems disaffected by their party’s insularity. In response to Megyn Kelly’s comment that Trump won the Rust Belt, he said, “They love me more.… They call me ‘Middle Class Joe.’ I understand what built this country.”

    Biden oozes “authenticity,” purrs the ruling class. How that accolade has crystallized around Biden is remarkable given that his first presidential run was blown up by plagiarism scandal in which he had to borrow the words of a British socialist to describe the meaning of his hard-scrabble youth in Pennsylvania. Biden has all the authenticity of a pol who urges his good friend “Chuck” to stand up without knowing that he is a paraplegic.

    Well, it would be amusing — Biden vs. Trump, and even better if another empty suit like Kamala Harris joins him. Drunk on the media’s praise, Biden may take the plunge. (Saturday Night Live, to its credit, isn’t joining in this chorus, mocking the notion that “it’s Biden time” in a skit last week about a geriatric, stale Democratic Party.) But if he does run, one suspects his faux-pensive “regret that I am not president” would quickly give way to a real regret that he didn’t quit while he was ahead.

    Run, Joe, Run
    George Neumayr
    November 15, 2017, 12:05 am

    https://spectator.org/run-joe-run/
    Nice post, thank you.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    69,962
    Thanks
    3,118
    Thanked 15,008 Times in 12,539 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,389 Times in 1,334 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    Nice post, thank you.
    MY BROTHER IS BACK!

    WTF happened?
    "Everywhere America goes it spreads war, misery, and destruction."
    The Han...every day....all around the world.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawkeye10 For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (10-08-2020)

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    MY BROTHER IS BACK!

    WTF happened?
    I was momentarily sick and tired of this stupid ass site. Please consider joining me on USMB. It's an infinitely better site than THIS piece of shit site.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Hawkeye10 (10-08-2020)

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    69,962
    Thanks
    3,118
    Thanked 15,008 Times in 12,539 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,389 Times in 1,334 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    I was momentarily sick and tired of this stupid ass site. Please consider joining me on USMB. It's an infinitely better site than THIS piece of shit site.
    Did they throw you out yet again?

    You promised that you were leaving us but that did not even last a day.
    "Everywhere America goes it spreads war, misery, and destruction."
    The Han...every day....all around the world.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawkeye10 For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (10-08-2020)

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Did they throw you out yet again?

    You promised that you were leaving us but that did not even last a day.
    Nope, things are going very well on USMB. I'm going to make sure I never get a ban on there again.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Hawkeye10 (10-08-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Let’s Not Hear It For The United Nations
    By Flanders in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-18-2020, 07:35 AM
  2. First Protect Children From The United Nations
    By Flanders in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2019, 08:39 AM
  3. Stop The Leaks To The United Nations
    By Flanders in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-29-2019, 06:47 AM
  4. United States humiliated at the United Nations
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 253
    Last Post: 06-25-2018, 01:27 AM
  5. United Nations sees wisdom
    By Canceled.LTroll.27 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 09:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •