One more time, American soldiers have American families. When American soldiers go missing, their families start complaining. The American press cares about American families. Everyone would know if many American soldiers were missing.
Operation Spiderweb is fascinating
- Thread starter Walt
- Start date
These are special forces working for the CIA. They don't exist once they go missing. There's nothing the families can do about it. Pat Tillman was most likely dispatched by his own unit.
I posted the unit's tattoos from dead bodies that Putin has on ice because they were wearing Ukraine uniforms. They violated international law and gave up their rights to be sent home.
During Vietnam the CIA had search and destroy missions where special forces got paid by the ear. They would go looking for a village, kill everyone, then burn it down. Anyone who denies that fact knows nothing about who we are as a nation.
I am pretty sure that most of the frozen bodies the Ukrainians refuse to take are Ukrainian......I heard Orlov say 80%....they are almost all from the Kursk Debacle.
You said yourself that close to 5000 dead are American or Western. I forget which one.
Special forces working for the CIA tend to be older, and have more family members to complain if they are missing.
Your conspiracy theory simply does not work.
I doubt it, but more importantly, being an American, the whole world noticed him missing.
Two bad signs.....The Russians recalled from around the world their top diplomats almost certainly to prep for a massive operation in Ukraine, and the Germans are getting ready to launch from Ukraine sheep dipped Tauruses....that is the Taurus with a new name that they claim were assembled in Ukraine.....daring the Russians to launch some Orsenics at Germany in order to widen the war.....and wars always tend to spread.
Surely Trump and Mertz just talked about this in the WH....it seems Trump gave the go ahead.
Surely Trump and Mertz just talked about this in the WH....it seems Trump gave the go ahead.
Timothy McVeigh was 23 years old when he was recruited by the CIA. Again, you know nothing about who we are as a nation.
Of the 75K NATO killed in Kursk Debacle, not of the 6K frozen bodies the Ukrainians refuse to take.
Re Kursk: This has not been nailed down but there is extensive speculation that because the Americans and the Europeans blamed the complete failure of the so-called spring offensive on the front line troops failing to properly conduct the NATO doctrine that they were trained on that in Kursk NATO demanded that there be a lot of non Ukrainian officers on the front line to make sure that this was done right....thus that as it collapsed the claim that there were about 100 non Ukrainian officers trapped or near trapped was likely correct.
Or more likely whomever drives WALT is lying again.
NATO should have withdrawn from Kursk after at most three days when it was clear that the main objective of getting the power plant had failed, and yet meat was continually feed into the grinder.....the likely reason is that NATO was desperate to prove that the reason the Spring Offensive failed was that the forces did not follow doctrine, that it was not as the Ukrainians claim that the doctrine and plan sucked, and that Western gear sucks.
Remember that Kursk was run with almost all Western gear, and not junk from the warehouses as has often been sent to Ukraine...this was supposed to be the good stuff.
Remember that Kursk was run with almost all Western gear, and not junk from the warehouses as has often been sent to Ukraine...this was supposed to be the good stuff.
Into the Night
Verified User
America is not a dictatorship or empire. Quoting Wikipedia here means nothing.No one said you were.
The caveat is that I made it clear that the U.S. is not -officially- an Empire. I found a rather good article on the matter on Wikipedia. I imagine you'll just say it's spam, but I think it's good to put it out there, as I think it's good information and others reading this may find it interesting:
**
United States of America
Further information: American imperialism
Contemporaneously, the concept of empire is politically valid, yet is not always used in the traditional sense. One of widely discussed cases is the United States. Characterizing aspects of the US in regards to its territorial expansion, foreign policy, and its international behavior as "American Empire" is common. The term "American Empire" refers to the United States' cultural ideologies and foreign policy strategies. The term is most commonly used to describe the U.S.'s status since the 20th century, but it can also be applied to the United States' world standing before the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. The US itself was at one point a colony in the British Empire. Thomas Jefferson used the term "Empire of Liberty" and argued that "no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government". Jefferson in the 1780s while awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire, said: "till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".
Even so, the ideology that the US was founded on anti-imperialist principles has prevented many from acknowledging America's status as an empire. This active rejection of imperialist status is not limited to high-ranking government officials, as it has been ingrained in American society throughout its entire history. As David Ludden explains, "journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and politicians prefer to depict the U.S. as a nation pursuing its own interests and ideals". This often results in imperialist endeavors being presented as measures taken to enhance state security. Ludden explains this phenomenon with the concept of "ideological blinders", which he says prevent American citizens from realizing the true nature of America's current systems and strategies. These "ideological blinders" that people wear have resulted in an "invisible" American empire of which most American citizens are unaware. Besides its anti-imperialist principles, the United States is not traditionally recognized as an empire, because the U.S. adopted a different political system from those that previous empires had used.
Despite the anti-imperial ideology and systematic differences, the political objectives and strategies of the United States government have been quite similar to those of previous empires. Throughout the 19th century, the United States government attempted to expand its territory by any means necessary. Regardless of the supposed motivation for this constant expansion, all of these land acquisitions were carried out by imperialistic means. This was done by financial means in some cases, and by military force in others. Most notably, the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas Annexation (1845), and the Mexican Cession (1848) highlight the imperialistic goals of the United States during this "modern period" of imperialism. The U.S. government has stopped adding additional territories, where they permanently and politically take over since the early 20th century, and instead have established 800 military bases as their outposts. With this overt but subtle military control of other countries, scholars consider U.S. foreign policy strategies to be imperialistic. Academic Krishna Kumar argues that the distinct principles of nationalism and imperialism may result in common practice; that is, the pursuit of nationalism can often coincide with the pursuit of imperialism in terms of strategy and decision making. Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (politics based on practical considerations, rather than ideals) impacts popular recognition of US imperial conduct since it governed other countries via surrogates. These surrogates were domestically weak, right-wing governments that would collapse without US support.
Former President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been." This was said in the context of the international opposition to the Iraq War led by the United States in manner widely regarded as imperial. With the 2003 invasion of Iraq underway, historian Sidney Lens argued that, from its inception, the US has used every means available to dominate foreign peoples and states. The same time, Eliot A. Cohen suggested: "The Age of Empire may indeed have ended, but then an age of American hegemony has begun, regardless of what one calls it." Some scholars did not bother how to call it: "When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck."
**
Source:
Empire - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Into the Night
Verified User
America is not an empire. It is not a dictatorship.
It is a failed Empire, the prize fighter that has been TKO'ed but has not hit the mat yet as Neil Oliver puts it.
Scott
Verified User
America is not a dictatorshipNo one said you were.
The caveat is that I made it clear that the U.S. is not -officially- an Empire. I found a rather good article on the matter on Wikipedia. I imagine you'll just say it's spam, but I think it's good to put it out there, as I think it's good information and others reading this may find it interesting:
**
United States of America
Further information: American imperialism
Contemporaneously, the concept of empire is politically valid, yet is not always used in the traditional sense. One of widely discussed cases is the United States. Characterizing aspects of the US in regards to its territorial expansion, foreign policy, and its international behavior as "American Empire" is common. The term "American Empire" refers to the United States' cultural ideologies and foreign policy strategies. The term is most commonly used to describe the U.S.'s status since the 20th century, but it can also be applied to the United States' world standing before the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. The US itself was at one point a colony in the British Empire. Thomas Jefferson used the term "Empire of Liberty" and argued that "no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government". Jefferson in the 1780s while awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire, said: "till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".
Even so, the ideology that the US was founded on anti-imperialist principles has prevented many from acknowledging America's status as an empire. This active rejection of imperialist status is not limited to high-ranking government officials, as it has been ingrained in American society throughout its entire history. As David Ludden explains, "journalists, scholars, teachers, students, analysts, and politicians prefer to depict the U.S. as a nation pursuing its own interests and ideals". This often results in imperialist endeavors being presented as measures taken to enhance state security. Ludden explains this phenomenon with the concept of "ideological blinders", which he says prevent American citizens from realizing the true nature of America's current systems and strategies. These "ideological blinders" that people wear have resulted in an "invisible" American empire of which most American citizens are unaware. Besides its anti-imperialist principles, the United States is not traditionally recognized as an empire, because the U.S. adopted a different political system from those that previous empires had used.
Despite the anti-imperial ideology and systematic differences, the political objectives and strategies of the United States government have been quite similar to those of previous empires. Throughout the 19th century, the United States government attempted to expand its territory by any means necessary. Regardless of the supposed motivation for this constant expansion, all of these land acquisitions were carried out by imperialistic means. This was done by financial means in some cases, and by military force in others. Most notably, the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas Annexation (1845), and the Mexican Cession (1848) highlight the imperialistic goals of the United States during this "modern period" of imperialism. The U.S. government has stopped adding additional territories, where they permanently and politically take over since the early 20th century, and instead have established 800 military bases as their outposts. With this overt but subtle military control of other countries, scholars consider U.S. foreign policy strategies to be imperialistic. Academic Krishna Kumar argues that the distinct principles of nationalism and imperialism may result in common practice; that is, the pursuit of nationalism can often coincide with the pursuit of imperialism in terms of strategy and decision making. Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (politics based on practical considerations, rather than ideals) impacts popular recognition of US imperial conduct since it governed other countries via surrogates. These surrogates were domestically weak, right-wing governments that would collapse without US support.
Former President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been." This was said in the context of the international opposition to the Iraq War led by the United States in manner widely regarded as imperial. With the 2003 invasion of Iraq underway, historian Sidney Lens argued that, from its inception, the US has used every means available to dominate foreign peoples and states. The same time, Eliot A. Cohen suggested: "The Age of Empire may indeed have ended, but then an age of American hegemony has begun, regardless of what one calls it." Some scholars did not bother how to call it: "When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck."
**
Source:
Empire - Wikipedia
I've already pointed out that no one here has said it was.
That's clearly debateable, as I pointed out in my previous post.
That depends on the quality of the sources of the Wikipedia article in question, as well as whether Wikipedia has properly interpreted its sources. In the case of the section of Wikipedia's article on the contemporary usage of Empire, I think they're spot on.
Scott
Verified User
I wouldn't go -that- far. I'd say it's a failing Empire, or an Empire in decline. The eventual outcome may be inevitable, but it's not there quite yet. Or to quote a line from The Dark Crystal film, as the Emperor lay dying in his bed, "I am still Emperor!".
The world is done with our abuse....the Universe demands justice....the demented will be removed.
Says the guy with a life long over optimism problem.