War Money And America's Future

 

Col. Douglas MacGregor writes in The American Conservative:

When Richard Nixon lost the election to John F. Kennedy, Nixon told supporters, “I know Jack Kennedy. He’s a patriot.” Nixon knew that the nation would be safe in President Kennedy’s hands.

Most Americans do not have the same confidence in President Biden. In April 2023, fewer than four in ten U.S. adults (37 percent) said they approved of Joe Biden’s job performance as president, with six in ten saying they disapproved. By a 2-to-1 margin, American voters now believe controlling the U.S. border is more important than helping Ukraine fight Russia. For the first time in 30 years, the U.S. Government’s interest payments on the sovereign debt equal defense spending. 

These revelations would shake the confidence of any White House, but there is much more for Washington and its NATO Allies to consider. Alleged efforts by the Department of State to freeze the conflict in Ukraine are dismissed out of hand in Moscow by every knowledgeable observer of the Russian government. In the absence of a freeze, Washington has no idea how to end the 600-day conflict. 

 

The astute and honorable Colonel concludes:

The Washington uniparty (corporate oligarchs, public health officials, mainstream media, social media, deep state agencies, academia, Hollywood, and an assortment of dubious international agencies like the UN/WHO/WEF) swiftly invested trillions to advance globalization with U.S. military power. Whenever the armed forces were committed to action, a series of administrations were always ready to defer to ineffective, even failed, military commanders. 

Wasteful defense spending, excessive redundancy in capability, and resistance to badly needed change in force design and modernization are now revealing that the U.S. Armed Forces are ill-suited to modern high-end conventional warfare. The fighting in Ukraine demonstrates that Washington can no longer ignore the influence of geography, culture, and economics, all of which operate as constraints on the use of American military power. 

The age of abundant wealth and unconstrained defense spending is nearing its end. How Washington reacts to these realities will determine America’s future.

 

Wow. Reflect, readers, and I quote: "The Washington uniparty... swiftly invested trillions to advance globalization with U.S. military power." I say again, invested trillions to advance globalization with US military power. Right in the X Ring, Colonel. And at what cost?

Beyond hideous. Hundreds of thousands dead over the last two decades and tens of thousands piling up in Ukraine every month, each one of them a mother's child. Beyond awful. So wherein lies the blame? MacGregor calls it, the DC Uniparty, that Man of Blood, intent on its enrichment at the psychotic expense of everything and everyone.

What amazes me is the way modern Leftists champion and cheer the killing machine, how blind they are to state agitprop. But perhaps I'm naive, maybe they were for this all along, see Lewis' Abolition of Man.

Cheers,

LSP

PS. Here's MacGregor chucking his monkey into the fight, via RHT:

Remember This Shaitan?

 

Remember this mid-grade shaitan, Alexander Vindman? Sure you do, he went all whistlehoaxer on 45, and with his swinish visage sounds the voice of a Platoon Sergeant, a Gloucester, still clear after all these years, "Gentlemen, look at that, too fat to f***n fight! Get off my Square, you're tilting it!"

That in mind, it seems our chubby little porcuswine's had its greasy fingers in the lucrative pie. Here's Poso:

Let’s talk about war grifters https://t.co/AQLuH0qnle

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 3, 2023

Dear readers, all two of you, is there something in the current proxy war that just... ain't right? Or would that be a crazed conspiracy theory? You be the judge.

Cheers,

LSP 

No Gas Says Fisk And Where Are The Missiles?

Via ZeroHedge:

Robert Fisk's bombshell first-hand account for the UK Independent runs contrary to nearly every claim circulating in major international press concerning what happened just over week ago on April 7th in an embattled suburb outside Damascus: not only has the veteran British journalist found no evidence of a mass chemical attack, but he's encountered multiple local eyewitnesses who experienced the chaos of that night, but who say the gas attack never happened.

According to Fisk and a doctor he interviewed in Douma, the video of people suffering from gas was in fact brought on by a dust storm and Syrian army shelling, then compounded by a false gas alarm, which caused people to douse themselves with water. You can read the whole thing here if you haven't already.

Then there's missiles, an awful lot of them, fired at just three targets. Joe Quin, writing at SOTT, offers a counter narrative, based on Russian radar reports and analysis of the target sites. He smells a rat:

But this then posed another problem. How to distribute the 100+ missiles among only 3 locations? Should they divide them equally, 33 (or so) at the HIAST buildings and 33 each at the two Homs locations? But would the visible damage tally with the reported number of missiles? The two locations outside Homs were problematic because they were in open farmland and the buildings were far too small to plausibly cover up the missing impact craters. There was only one thing for it: the HIAST target, with its 3 sizable towerblocks, would have to take the lion's share of the missing missiles. The outrageous number of 76, to be exact.

You can read the whole thing here.

Perhaps Fisk's a shill, Quin's a conspiracy theorist, Russian, Assadite dupe and we should take the Pentagon's report at face value. But if we do, let's not forget the old adage, War's a Racket.

Cheers,

LSP