"The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms."

[midnightpulp]

How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.

Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger64.html

[DMC]

Cool story

[fraga]

http://i53.tinypic.com/34rvr02.jpg

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

OP is right tbh. The government used the communist bogey man to scare Americans for 50 years and as the reason why we needed to dump billions into the military. After they could no longer use the communist bogey man, they went right to using the middle eastern Islamic bogey man.

[Heath Ledger]

Iranian boogie man is next.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Iranian boogie man falls under the Islamic boogie man. The government isn't done milking that one yet. My guess is the next one will be the Latin American boogie man.

[DMC]

lol bail out attempt thread


:lmao

DoK seeking refuge here

:lmao

[ChuckD]

Iranian boogie man falls under the Islamic boogie man. The government isn't done milking that one yet. My guess is the next one will be the Latin American boogie man.

They started that one 60 years ago with Fidel, continued it in the 80s with the Sandanistas, and perpetuate it today with Hugo Chavez.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

True tbh, but they'll start using it as an excuse to wage wars once they can no longer use the Islamic boogie man to wage wars

[LnGrrrR]

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

1. Foreign Regimes

Pretty obvious that no one could invade the US. However, I don't think the military is necessarily around to prevent invasion, but to prevent attacks in general (in conjunction with FBI/CIA/etc) and to provide the ability to counterstrike when/if necessary.

2. Terrorists

I find it funny that he lays the blame of terrorist attacks on soldiers alone, and not the civilian agencies. Also, his bias is shown bare in one sentence alone:



Obeying presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis — that is, people whose worst “crime” was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.


As far as the "congressionally required declaration of war" that's a legal gray area. Second, where's his source for the "killing and maiming of thousands of innocent Iraqis"? The numbers of casualties are quite high, definitely, but I doubt all were innocent, and I doubt all were killed/maimed by US forces. If he could provide some data, that would help his argument.

And if they wanted to resist, they could do so lawfully, by openly bearing arms and wearing uniforms. Then we would be forced to treat them as POWs. By not following the Geneva Conventions, it makes it harder to separate terrorists from innocents.

3. Federal Government

Again, bias rears its ugly head.




Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?
There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he would.



I have no doubt that some military members would. However, I doubt it would be as widespread as the author suggests. Of course, since it's all speculation, the whole thrust of pt 3 is rather pointless.




As I suggested in my article, “The Troops Don't Support the Constitution (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0510c.asp),” in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.



Here, he shows a basic failure to know the difference between enlisted and officer corps. Here's a quick snapshot of the vital difference between the two oaths:
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/enlisted-vs-commissioned-military-oath-of-office/

Enlisted: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, (snip)

Officer: “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, (snip)

It doesn't do much for his argument when he doesn't even make a distinction between the two.

His idea that soldiers should refuse to deploy en masse is facile as well. Many prominent legal scholars have debated the legality of various orders, so I don't see how he is suddenly the final say on the subject.

The rest of part 3 blathers on repeatedly with his assertion that the military would blindly round up their own neighbors, with no facts to support the assertion whatsoever.


4: The solution

The author's solution is so ridiculous that it immediately discredits him.


There is one — and only one — solution to this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed the warning of President Eisenhower (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon's enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private sector.

So, now that we've pissed off other nations, we should completely abolish the standing army we've had for... oh, a century or moreso.

Let's hypothesize an attack from, say, China. How fast do you think we could respond to an attack if we had to start from scratch? The author tries to make it seem like the only threat whatsoever is "invasion" and invasion alone. His idea that regular citizens could "come together" and defeat a practiced army is ridiculous on its face. And tell me, how "well-trained" would these citizens be 10 years after the military was dismantled? 20 years?

Back when the Founding Fathers were around, they didn't have planes, let alone bombers. If the US wanted to, we could bomb a country back to the stone age.


In total, a very shallow article. And this is coming from someone who is also isolationist. Assuming that the world's strongest superpower could suddently dismantle their entire military, and everything would turn up roses, is pretty much fucktarded.

[baseline bum]

Iranian boogie man falls under the Islamic boogie man. The government isn't done milking that one yet. My guess is the next one will be the Latin American boogie man.

We already had that one under Reagan tbh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

For the record I don't agree with the notion that we don't need a military at all, but I do think all of our foreign troops in every country should be brought home, and the size/spending of the military should be massively cut down.

[LnGrrrR]

For the record I don't agree with the notion that we don't need a military at all, but I do think all of our foreign troops in every country should be brought home, and the size/spending of the military should be massively cut down.

I'm on-board with that. In fact, I do agree that the size of our military beggars its usage.

[JayTheClown]

OP is right tbh. The government used the communist bogey man to scare Americans for 50 years and as the reason why we needed to dump billions into the military. After they could no longer use the communist bogey man, they went right to using the middle eastern Islamic bogey man.

I call BS, the so-called "communist bogey man" was put to bed in the late 80s early 90s (lets say 1991). What was the government using as a bogey man before 2001?

[4>0rings]

OP is right tbh. The government used the communist bogey man to scare Americans for 50 years and as the reason why we needed to dump billions into the military. After they could no longer use the communist bogey man, they went right to using the middle eastern Islamic bogey man.

Have you once thought about the repercussions of communism succeeding instead of collapsing due to our ability to outspend them?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

During the 90s was when the government began to use the Islamic boogie man, especially after the 1993 WTC attack

[ChuckD]

I call BS, the so-called "communist bogey man" was put to bed in the late 80s early 90s (lets say 1991). What was the government using as a bogey man before 2001?

Uh, Desert Storm started in 91. That was the beginning of our seeming never ending presence in the Middle East.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Have you once thought about the repercussions of communism succeeding instead of collapsing due to our ability to outspend them?
yeah I have. Anyone who thinks communism was a real threat to America is blind.

[JayTheClown]

Uh, Desert Storm started in 91. That was the beginning of our seeming never ending presence in the Middle East.

Yeah, but Muslims weren't demonized like they were after 9/11. The average American didn't associate Muslims with war. Like many do now.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, but Muslims weren't demonized like they were after 9/11. The average American didn't associate Muslims with war. Like many do now.

It might be more than correlation that we had a time of relative peace after the Gulf War, and also a relatively strong economy.

[JayTheClown]

It might be more than correlation that we had a time of relative peace after the Gulf War, and also a relatively strong economy.

War is a was very profitable industry back then. :lol

[DMC]

A lot of the "economic prosperity" from the 90's showed it's ugly facade of a head in the past decade as S&L scandals, Goldman Sachs and the others, dot com bubble collapse, Enron scandals and the like. It was smoke and mirrors and a few of people got rich and a lot of people got poor.

[ChuckD]

A lot of the "economic prosperity" from the 90's showed it's ugly facade of a head in the past decade as S&L scandals, Goldman Sachs and the others, dot com bubble collapse, Enron scandals and the like. It was smoke and mirrors and a few of people got rich and a lot of people got poor.

Capitalism is just a bubble.

[lefty]

How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.

Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and well-being are threatened.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger64.html

i agree

[AFBlue]

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

1. Foreign Regimes

Pretty obvious that no one could invade the US. However, I don't think the military is necessarily around to prevent invasion, but to prevent attacks in general (in conjunction with FBI/CIA/etc) and to provide the ability to counterstrike when/if necessary.

2. Terrorists

I find it funny that he lays the blame of terrorist attacks on soldiers alone, and not the civilian agencies. Also, his bias is shown bare in one sentence alone:



As far as the "congressionally required declaration of war" that's a legal gray area. Second, where's his source for the "killing and maiming of thousands of innocent Iraqis"? The numbers of casualties are quite high, definitely, but I doubt all were innocent, and I doubt all were killed/maimed by US forces. If he could provide some data, that would help his argument.

And if they wanted to resist, they could do so lawfully, by openly bearing arms and wearing uniforms. Then we would be forced to treat them as POWs. By not following the Geneva Conventions, it makes it harder to separate terrorists from innocents.

3. Federal Government

Again, bias rears its ugly head.




I have no doubt that some military members would. However, I doubt it would be as widespread as the author suggests. Of course, since it's all speculation, the whole thrust of pt 3 is rather pointless.




Here, he shows a basic failure to know the difference between enlisted and officer corps. Here's a quick snapshot of the vital difference between the two oaths:
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/enlisted-vs-commissioned-military-oath-of-office/

Enlisted: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, (snip)

Officer: “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, (snip)

It doesn't do much for his argument when he doesn't even make a distinction between the two.

His idea that soldiers should refuse to deploy en masse is facile as well. Many prominent legal scholars have debated the legality of various orders, so I don't see how he is suddenly the final say on the subject.

The rest of part 3 blathers on repeatedly with his assertion that the military would blindly round up their own neighbors, with no facts to support the assertion whatsoever.


4: The solution

The author's solution is so ridiculous that it immediately discredits him.

.

So, now that we've pissed off other nations, we should completely abolish the standing army we've had for... oh, a century or moreso.

Let's hypothesize an attack from, say, China. How fast do you think we could respond to an attack if we had to start from scratch? The author tries to make it seem like the only threat whatsoever is "invasion" and invasion alone. His idea that regular citizens could "come together" and defeat a practiced army is ridiculous on its face. And tell me, how "well-trained" would these citizens be 10 years after the military was dismantled? 20 years?

Back when the Founding Fathers were around, they didn't have planes, let alone bombers. If the US wanted to, we could bomb a country back to the stone age.


In total, a very shallow article. And this is coming from someone who is also isolationist. Assuming that the world's strongest superpower could suddently dismantle their entire military, and everything would turn up roses, is pretty much fucktarded.


/thread

[xellos88330]

Wow... that article was dumb.

Why does he only think that the Americans can be forced to submit only through invasion? There are different kinds of warfare, not just wars of attrition. I personally would nuke the shit outta a country I didn't like. It may not win the war straight out, but it will definitely hinder the ability of my enemies to wage war if there isn't anyone to work on the economy, industries, etc.

I bet that turd would be the first to surrender.

[Wild Cobra]

As a veteran, I'm offended.

[mavs>spurs]

Wow... that article was dumb.

Why does he only think that the Americans can be forced to submit only through invasion? There are different kinds of warfare, not just wars of attrition. I personally would nuke the shit outta a country I didn't like. It may not win the war straight out, but it will definitely hinder the ability of my enemies to wage war if there isn't anyone to work on the economy, industries, etc.

I bet that turd would be the first to surrender.

Lol umm then you just get nuked back and the rest of the world probably jumps your ass for being stupid.

[z0sa]

lol, it doesn't surprise me that the Korean War hasn't been directly mentioned. My great uncle died in that war, just like FORTY ONE THOUSAND OTHER AMERICANS (including MIA). That's right, some war the vast majority of Americans don't know why we fought, forty thousand young men just like me and DoK and every -30yearold here died for nothing for. In a shallow fucking mud grave while some asshole in washington laughed about it and puffed on a Cuban.

I hate this bullshit war, but we've had even worse trespasses on Americans, nay, humanity's right to freedom, life, and liberty.

[Jacob1983]

Why not let the troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan come home and protect the border?

[z0sa]

Because no one's invading our borders. Unless you think picking fruit for pennies an hour so you and me don't have to pay more at the conglomerate is an act of war. That's sure living the american dream tens of thousands fucking died for.

[LnGrrrR]

lol, it doesn't surprise me that the Korean War hasn't been directly mentioned. My great uncle died in that war, just like FORTY ONE THOUSAND OTHER AMERICANS (including MIA). That's right, some war the vast majority of Americans don't know why we fought, forty thousand young men just like me and DoK and every -30yearold here died for nothing for. In a shallow fucking mud grave while some asshole in washington laughed about it and puffed on a Cuban.

I hate this bullshit war, but we've had even worse trespasses on Americans, nay, humanity's right to freedom, life, and liberty.

The Korean War was the first great example of airpower, using the airbridge.

[z0sa]

The Korean War was the first great example of airpower, using the airbridge.

I disagree about it being the first great example of air power. That was definitely WW2. The carrier battles of the Pacific come to mind immediately.

But probably the worst part about the Korean War was the fact its the last major war to incorproate trench warfare for a long period throughout. PLus the Soviets got to fly their pilots against ours without repercussion. So many things about that war piss me off ...

[Wild Cobra]

I disagree about it being the first great example of air power. That was definitely WW2. The carrier battles of the Pacific come to mind immediately.

But probably the worst part about the Korean War was the fact its the last major war to incorproate trench warfare for a long period throughout. PLus the Soviets got to fly their pilots against ours without repercussion. So many things about that war piss me off ...
He specified "airbridge" which is a form of logistical support.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why not let the troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan come home and protect the border?
:lol more stupidity

The amount of illegals in this country is actually declining because none of them can get work here anymore and a lot of them can have a better lifestyle in Mexico because of how fucked up our economy is. Illegals aren't even remotely a problem in this country right now (other than the crime and drugs they bring) and the states like Arizona that drove illegals out are suffering big time because of it. There are apartment complexes in Phoenix that are like 60% vacant and on the verge of shutting down because immigrants vacated in droves after SB1070 was passed.

[Wild Cobra]

There are apartment complexes in Phoenix that are like 60% vacant and on the verge of shutting down because immigrants vacated in droves after SB1070 was passed.
Oh...

Don't even go there about Phoenix.

I have been to Phoenix so many times, and have family in Sun City West. Phoenix has been in decline in some area for over a decade.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Have you been to Phoenix in the last few years? Areas like the north valley are dead. Bell Rd. from like 15th ave. to 32nd st. is almost like a ghost town with how many empty warehouses there are in that stretch, it's almost surreal to drive through the area and see how dead it is.

[Wild Cobra]

Have you been to Phoenix in the last few years? Areas like the north valley are dead. Bell Rd. from like 15th ave. to 32nd st. is almost like a ghost town with how many empty warehouses there are in that stretch, it's almost surreal to drive through the area and see how dead it is.
Yes, the after effects of a decline that started over a decade ago.

Why blame it on others?

[Heath Ledger]

:lol more stupidity

The amount of illegals in this country is actually declining because none of them can get work here anymore and a lot of them can have a better lifestyle in Mexico because of how fucked up our economy is. Illegals aren't even remotely a problem in this country right now (other than the crime and drugs they bring) and the states like Arizona that drove illegals out are suffering big time because of it. There are apartment complexes in Phoenix that are like 60% vacant and on the verge of shutting down because immigrants vacated in droves after SB1070 was passed.


Not a problem? So I guess x million illegals leaching off of our welfare system and driving up the cost of healthcare (not paying) is not a problem?

L

[bus driver]

"I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

5j2F4VcBmeo

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree about it being the first great example of air power. That was definitely WW2. The carrier battles of the Pacific come to mind immediately.

But probably the worst part about the Korean War was the fact its the last major war to incorproate trench warfare for a long period throughout. Plus the Soviets got to fly their pilots against ours without repercussion. So many things about that war piss me off ...

You know, you're right Zosa, I misspoke. I just think that the Korean War showed how versatile airpower could be, whether it be dropping bombs, or extending the supply chain.

[LnGrrrR]

He specified "airbridge" which is a form of logistical support.

Thanks for the backup WC. :tu

[Cyrano]

yeah I have. Anyone who thinks communism was a real threat to America is blind.

I might wear fairly thick glasses, but I'm not quite blind. You, however, apparently never saw firsthand the absolute brutality of the Soviet system of governance. I did. I've seen firsthand civilians being shot down for the crime of trying to leave the "workers paradise". I've watched the East Germans performing maintenence on the minefields just the other side of "the wall". I used to listen to the Russian army radio traffic, and believe me, their intentions toward the west were anything but benign.
I was a Russian linguist with the Army Security Agency assigned to Field Station Berlin at Teufelsberg.

BTW, speaking of airbridge, let's not forget the Berlin Airlift of 1947. This came about when those benign, friendly Soviets attempted to get Britian, France, and the US to leave Berlin by blockading the roads and starving them out.

[spursncowboys]

yeah I have. Anyone who thinks communism was a real threat to America is blind.

I guess the 70 million plus victims to communism were just killed by bogey men too?

[LnGrrrR]

BTW, speaking of airbridge, let's not forget the Berlin Airlift of 1947. This came about when those benign, friendly Soviets attempted to get Britian, France, and the US to leave Berlin by blockading the roads and starving them out.

That was the new Air Force's first crucible, and they passed with a pretty decent grade from most accounts.

[lefty]

I guess the 70 million plus victims to communism were just killed by bogey men too?
Why dont you ask Joseph McCarthy ?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I guess the 70 million plus victims to communism were just killed by bogey men too?
The Soviets were not just a communist country but also a totalitarian dictatorship. For whatever reason Americans think communism = totalitarian dictatorship.

[spursncowboys]

Why dont you ask Joseph McCarthy ?



RIght and how many communists did he kill?

[Spurminator]

Americans think Communism = 15 cent tax hikes on Christmas trees.

We're not a very smart bunch.

[spursncowboys]

The Soviets were not just a communist country but also a totalitarian dictatorship. For whatever reason Americans think communism = totalitarian dictatorship.
I think that is the point. It seems almost impossible to vote communism out. I guess because they don't get to vote anymore.

[spursncowboys]

But fuck it. Troops are just baby killers. Just because we eventually won the cold war doesn't mean we couldn't have lost. Same is said about WW2. You can't look back as the victors thinking belittling of our past enemies.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think that is the point. It seems almost impossible to vote communism out. I guess because they don't get to vote anymore.
I agree more or less, but my point is that the government demonized the word communism like it was this big bad evil when the real evil is a totalitarian government, something we already knew.

[DMC]

The Soviets were not just a communist country but also a totalitarian dictatorship. For whatever reason Americans think communism = totalitarian dictatorship.
Since Russia didn't have a true form of communism, Americans see what Russia had and they don't want it. China also doesn't have a true form of communism.

America doesn't have a true democracy, but many Americans think we do.

It's amazing what 1st year college kids think they've discovered.

[The Reckoning]

what communist country hasn't had a totalitarian dictatorship?



RIght and how many communists did he kill?

well you could argue that the red scare he helped revitalize fueled our interests in korea and vietnam...so millions.

[DMC]

DoK getting shit on in yet another military thread.

Dude, stick to what you know about, pinching pennies and sniffing out quarters in couch cushions. Your military knowledge comes from movies, video games, some liberal faggot instructors who never served and South Park.

Give it a rest.

[spursncowboys]

what communism country hasn't had a totalitarian dictatorship?




well you could argue that the fear of communism he started fueled our interests in korea and vietnam...so millions.

Could you argue that the Truman doctrine was in any way influenced by J. McCarthy?

[xellos88330]

Lol umm then you just get nuked back and the rest of the world probably jumps your ass for being stupid.

If you would read what I said, the war wouldn't be won straight out.

This is what my plan would be. I would get into contact with terrorists since apparently... the US government has issues finding them. I would give them some nukes to place at locations I decide. Then set them all off at once. Noone could blame my country, but they could blame the terrorists. My country suffers no nuclear strike, and the war goes on with anonymous "soldiers" doing all of the fighting. Those dumbass terrorists just want to die anyways. You can't nuke someone if you don't know who is responsible. The world won't allow it.

PS: I am NOT a terrorist... just an extremely bored individual. :wakeup

[lefty]

what communist country hasn't had a totalitarian dictatorship?




well you could argue that the red scare he helped revitalize fueled our interests in korea and vietnam...so millions.

This

[DMC]

If you would read what I said, the war wouldn't be won straight out.

This is what my plan would be. I would get into contact with terrorists since apparently... the US government has issues finding them. I would give them some nukes to place at locations I decide. Then set them all off at once. Noone could blame my country, but they could blame the terrorists. My country suffers no nuclear strike, and the war goes on with anonymous "soldiers" doing all of the fighting. Those dumbass terrorists just want to die anyways. You can't nuke someone if you don't know who is responsible. The world won't allow it.

PS: I am NOT a terrorist... just an extremely bored individual. :wakeup

Great ideas.

I would call 411 and ask for the terrorists hideout, tell them I am fucking jihad 2.0 with a side of tummy sticks. They would cum on themselves and I could sell them shitty fireworks.

That would end it.

[redzero]

lol, it doesn't surprise me that the Korean War hasn't been directly mentioned. My great uncle died in that war, just like FORTY ONE THOUSAND OTHER AMERICANS (including MIA). That's right, some war the vast majority of Americans don't know why we fought, forty thousand young men just like me and DoK and every -30yearold here died for nothing for. In a shallow fucking mud grave while some asshole in washington laughed about it and puffed on a Cuban.

I hate this bullshit war, but we've had even worse trespasses on Americans, nay, humanity's right to freedom, life, and liberty.

It's called the forgotten war for a reason.

[spursncowboys]

@zosa the threat of communism spreading was a real threat. The Korean war showed China, and Russia that we will contain Communism and help our aliies out. As a result, S. Korea is one the biggest and most prosperous economies in the world, One thing that doesn't get mentioned is us allying with china through all this. It helped china to move more towards a capitalist friendly communist rule, which russia vehemently was against. It also helped china become more allies with america than russia. the korean war was anything but some forgotten war. It has helped to be a great comparison of the evils of communism and the benefits to an entire society with a free market with free citizens.

[xellos88330]

Great ideas.

I would call 411 and ask for the terrorists hideout, tell them I am fucking jihad 2.0 with a side of tummy sticks. They would cum on themselves and I could sell them shitty fireworks.

That would end it.

:lmao:

[Agloco]

Iranian boogie man falls under the Islamic boogie man. The government isn't done milking that one yet. My guess is the next one will be the Latin American boogie man.

Lets see if you're humming the same tune once a few Shahab missiles are tipped with nuclear payloads.

Having filed a few of these myself, I can tell you they're more than a boogeyman. This is unless you believe Ack-mah-dinny-johnny is actually a misunderstood peace loving tree hugger.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-54.pdf

[Bill_Brasky]

Communism was never anything to be scared of...Russia was.

But the retardedness that was McCarthyism and the House Committee of Unamerican Activities blackballed anyone who knew anything about communism. These were people that the govt should have been consulting, working, and strategizing with and instead they were exiled for being "unamerican".


Fucking idiots.

[scampers]

Communism was never anything to be scared of...Russia was.

Bingo.

[Bill_Brasky]

jl2JQfxnnHU

The Eisenhower clip at the end......wow.

[bus driver]

who does protect our freedom, if the troops dont do it?

[lefty]

who does protect our freedom, if the troops dont do it?
Nobody because you aren't being attacked by innocent people who are living 100000000000000000000 miles away

[bus driver]

Nobody because you aren't being attacked by innocent people who are living 100000000000000000000 miles away

so who protects it when we are (america) being attacked?

[lefty]

so who protects it when we are (america) being attacked?
nobody

[DMC]

who does protect our freedom, if the troops dont do it?
Our freedoms are being destroyed from within by people who have so long been out of reality (generations it seems) that they are sure that we shouldn't have rights that they don't think we need.

This enemy believes safety to be a feeling, not a state of being and they will do what it takes to feel safe as long as that doesn't require getting off the couch or becoming educated in things that threaten safety.

[z0sa]

He specified "airbridge" which is a form of logistical support.

Berlin Airlift 2 years earlier says hello :toast Truly one of the greatest events in all history, specifically aviation history, was the Berlin airlift.

[TDMVPDPOY]

commie = 1 party only....inside party many factions

whatever is related to the party whether its the army, its purpose? is to protect the members in the party only, fck the population

you fck around with the govt, they take out there shit on the population

[Agloco]

The Korean War was the first great example of airpower, using the airbridge.

Using an airbridge perhaps, although the Berlin airlift comes to mind. The horrors of the Dresden firebombing were recounted to me by my mother a time or two. It had an eerie glow night after night. The stories that survivors had about the carnage were like something out of a fiction novel.

I'd have to go with the Allied air campaign over Nazi Germany from late 1942 till mid 1945.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, the Berlin Airlift was a pretty amazing operation. I just was rereading up on it last night; pretty amazing how they retooled some of their plans on the fly in order to more effectively carry out the mission.

[bus driver]

nobody

oh, the unsung hero.


classy!