What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

¡Viva la Revolucion!

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-03-28/brother-obama

The old warhorse still does not like us.

So Fidel is not interested in burying the hatchet and moving on to a more prosperous future? We shouldn't expect him to just rollover and take it up the *** because the United States came calling, but to twist so much of what Obama stated so Fidel could further incite his people just screams out that he's grasping. He's scared of losing control of his country, desperate to remain relevant. I doubt relations between our two nations could move forward were he still leading Cuba.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Isn't he basically in the "Old man yells at cloud" portion of his life?
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Fidel has lost the war and now he's going to lose the people.

Seriously, thanks Obama. I can't wait to visit.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Make em a state, they've got fewer than one third of CA's population. Just unify the Dakotas and keep us at 50.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Make em a state, they've got fewer than one third of CA's population. Just unify the Dakotas and keep us at 50.

According to the Star Trek TNG episode "Royale", weren't we supposed to be at 52 states by now? ;)
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Make em a state, they've got fewer than one third of CA's population. Just unify the Dakotas and keep us at 50.

Shhhhhhhhh!! You'll expose Obama's evil globalist plot to the Trumpettes and the remaining Fidel loyalists! :mad:
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Wars of Pure Defense: an interesting review of the literature.

WPD would meet actual attacks on national territory while declining to devastate the invaders’ home territory and society. It would therefore undertake no colossal overseas operations, invasions, surrenders, occupations, and the rest. Nor does WPD require granting semi-magical war powers to state bureaucracies while rationalizing the damage done to law and liberty. We could quit agonizing over the “laws” of war, except perhaps to exceed them on the side of humanity. The world-striding U.S. unitary executive, stripped of his mercenary companies, could shrink into a glorified sewer commissioner. Alliances would be the exception, never the rule. Agreements whereby an attack on Micro-Magnesia is fictitiously seen as an attack on U.S. soil would not arise.

With invaders repelled, there would be little to do except to arrange prisoner exchanges and discuss damages, perhaps in a real peace treaty (out of fashion since 1945).

Where mere money is concerned, pure-defense planning would surely be cheaper than constant preparation to invade and bomb the world. With respect to a pure-defense budget, libertarian realists have made useful suggestions (despite the lack of commitment to strict nonintervention). Earl Ravenal’s “Case for Adjustment” (Foreign Policy, 81, Winter 1990–1991) outlined a massive reduction of U.S. defense spending simply by assuming withdrawal from Europe, protection of sea lanes and essential allies, and a minimal nuclear deterrent.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Happy Bay of Pigs Day!!!

Nice to see we can still f-ck up on that scale or larger.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.

An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.

The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.

Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

But Bandar held sway over the FBI.

After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Has anybody else been following the reports of Russian and Chinese fighter jets intercepting and making dangerous maneuvers against US surveillance planes in international waters lately? The Chinese incident even proved fatal to a Chinese pilot when he crashed his J-8 into an American surveillance plane some 135 miles off the coast of China. All 24 American airmen survived the crash, but had to make an unauthorized emergency landing at a Chinese airport, destroying all sensitive equipment and data en route.

The Russians, it's believed, are doing this more as sending notice to the Polish government, even going so far as to buzz an American warship in the middle of the Black Sea, again in international waters, while performing training maneuvers with a Polish helicopter. Meanwhile, in response to these issues and increased Russian posturing, we've been loading up friendly European nations close to Russia with warplanes, mostly F-15s and F-16s, but also a group of F-22s.

On one hand, I'm inclined to believe it's all just sabre rattling, but on the other hand the Russians and Chinese are playing a very dangerous game - even beyond the one dead Chinese pilot.

I don't like this particular brand of chess at all.
 
Has anybody else been following the reports of Russian and Chinese fighter jets intercepting and making dangerous maneuvers against US surveillance planes in international waters lately? The Chinese incident even proved fatal to a Chinese pilot when he crashed his J-8 into an American surveillance plane some 135 miles off the coast of China. All 24 American airmen survived the crash, but had to make an unauthorized emergency landing at a Chinese airport, destroying all sensitive equipment and data en route.

The Russians, it's believed, are doing this more as sending notice to the Polish government, even going so far as to buzz an American warship in the middle of the Black Sea, again in international waters, while performing training maneuvers with a Polish helicopter. Meanwhile, in response to these issues and increased Russian posturing, we've been loading up friendly European nations close to Russia with warplanes, mostly F-15s and F-16s, but also a group of F-22s.

On one hand, I'm inclined to believe it's all just sabre rattling, but on the other hand the Russians and Chinese are playing a very dangerous game - even beyond the one dead Chinese pilot.

I don't like this particular brand of chess at all.

Turn on the fire control radar and paint the bahstahds as they come in. They'll get the idea.

Turn it up full blast and you'll fry the electronics (and the pilot) if the jet gets too close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top