Politics

[sestoppelman]

Worth a few minutes of attention.

MSN

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

The term "Pickle" is sort of like "Bombs away!"

 

[mdwest]

Sweet Baby Jesus.. our political system can’t seem to find the bottom… every day they seek out a new low..

Congressional staffer caught filming amateur gay pornography in Senate

A Congressional staffer has been accused of filming an amateur gay porn video inside a Senate hearing room.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Altitude sickness]

Looks like one of them found the “bottom”

Does this really shock anyone. D.C. is the cesspool it’s portrayed to be.

They will be heralded as the modern fascist Left’s victims. Then hero’s.

 

[Jfet]

And here we go again.

 

[Corey0372]

This is far too long a read for most here, but I highly recommend it - particularly for the Ukraine doesn't matter crowd. The Institute for the Study of War (ISSW) has been the most authoritative source of information about the conflict since it began.

Institute for the Study of War

The United States has a much higher stake in Russia's war on Ukraine than most people think. A Russian conquest of all of Ukraine is by no means impossible if the United States cuts off all military assistance and Europe follows suit. Such an outcome

www.understandingwar.org

The ISW is probably the most biased neo-conservative source there is.

Listen to Bill Kristol, Nuland and the Kagan's..... because they never get anything wrong.

 

[Brent in Az]

Mattress back Harris, is in the V.I.P booth at the Cricket celebration bowl. Jumping up and down for her photo op.

Makes my skin crawl.

 

[sestoppelman]

The ISW is probably the most biased neo-conservative source there is.

Listen to Bill Kristol, Nuland and the Kagan's..... because they never get anything wrong.

Bill Kristol is nothing but a fink, turncoat libtard now.

 

[Corey0372]

Bill Kristol is nothing but a fink, turncoat libtard now.

Always was, haha

 

[sestoppelman]

Always was, haha

Years ago he seemed fairly sensible but he lost his mind with TDS and been worthless ever since.

 

[Brent in Az]

Well.......bye!

 

[Hunt anything]

Well.......bye!

View attachment 574998

I’m sure there are plenty of countries out there that would love to have a Crackhead sex addicted Biden as a brand new tax payer. Never mind he doesn’t pay taxes.

 

[Red Leg]

The ISW is probably the most biased neo-conservative source there is.

Listen to Bill Kristol, Nuland and the Kagan's..... because they never get anything wrong.

I think that is the most biased review of ISW I have read. I also couldn't disagree with it more. Though I will credit you for at least being succinct.

In my professional opinion, it has been both the most informed and the most even-handed reporting on the war - or any other current conflicts for that matter - published in this country. By definition, I suppose, it wouldn't appeal to neo-isolationists any more than neo-cons. Perhaps you can offer a more thorough informed source for me and other readers of this forum.

Yes Bill Kristol is on its board of directors. So is Joe Lieberman, David Patraeus, and a number of other key thought leaders from across the political, diplomatic, academic, and military spectrum. The Institute's analysts and writers represent a degree of polmil analytical expertise and experience one only finds at places like CIA, DIA, and DOS. The institute is chaired by one of the finest apolitical military minds of my generation. Gen (ret) Jack Keane is also a mentor, colleague, and friend. I am laughing trying to imagine his reaction to being labeled a neo-con.

I would agree it would be one of the last places a Donald Trump supporter should go for confirmation bias. On the other hand, it would be a great stop to learn something about international interests and conflict rather than merely repeat someone else's slogans. The Institute has been very critical in its analysis of the effect of slow and limited military support by the West - particularly this administration. It has been equally thorough in its assessment of Russian capabilities and tactics, and in Ukraine's abilities, successes, and failures on the battlefield.

The Institute is absolutely guilty of recognizing and writing to an audience that fully understands the United States' critical national interests do not end at the water's edge. But this is the age of Trump, where "America first," rather than meaning American critical national interests, can be twisted into a new rendition of isolationism that the country hasn't seen since 1939.

No, I'll absolutely continue to recommend ISW as far and away the best source on the war in Ukraine - at least until someone can offer me a better one. I am confident you would benefit from actually reading it.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Sweet Baby Jesus.. our political system can’t seem to find the bottom… every day they seek out a new low..

Congressional staffer caught filming amateur gay pornography in Senate

A Congressional staffer has been accused of filming an amateur gay porn video inside a Senate hearing room.

www.dailymail.co.uk

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... I see he worked for Senator Cardin's office. Fox News Sunday has had Cardin on many times, to discuss national issues. Get him on again and ask about what his office expects to see on a resume when they hire someone.

“Aidan Maese-Czeropski is no longer employed by the U.S. Senate,” the Maryland Democrat’s office said in a statement to NBC News on Saturday, which was first obtained by Politico. “We will have no further comment on this personnel matter.”

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I have read through some of the ISW reports, but they tend to be far too long and I just don’t have the time or focus. What is really useful is to receive summaries, which sometimes appear, but for something as important as this war they are way too infrequent. I have been interested to find out what is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro, it is like it is a best kept secret. Why? Do the analysts think the Russians don’t know? There is always an element of war that is waged in the public opinion space, ask the Israelis, but Ukraine seems to shut that down for some reason, only putting out the bits about attacks against them. Net result is that there is a perception that they are always on the losing end. Not smart in my insignificant opinion.

 

[Tanks]

...

Yes Bill Kristol is on its board of directors. So is Joe Lieberman, David Patraeus, and a number of other key thought leaders from across the political, diplomatic, academic, and military spectrum. The Institute's analysts and writers represent a degree of polmil analytical expertise and experience one only finds at places like CIA, DIA, and DOS. The institute is chaired by one of the finest apolitical military minds of my generation. Gen (ret) Jack Keane is also a mentor, colleague, and friend. I am laughing trying to imagine his reaction to being labeled a neo-con.

...

All those names prove is that they are part of the "swamp" with an agenda to support the military–industrial complex.

Of course, I am being sarcastic. Unfortunately, I am also channeling the "America First" crowd.

 

[Corey0372]

I think that is the most biased review of ISW I have read. I also couldn't disagree with it more. In my professional opinion, it has been both the most informed and the most even-handed reporting on the war - or any other current conflicts for that matter - published in this country. By definition I suppose, it wouldn't appeal to neo-isolationists any more than neo-cons. Perhaps you can offer a more thorough informed source for readers of this forum.

Yes Bill Kristol is on its board of directors. So is Joe Lieberman, David Patraeus, and a number of other key thought leaders from across the political, diplomatic, academic, and military spectrum. The Institute's analysts and writers represent a degree of polmil analytical expertise and experience one only finds at places like CIA, DIA, and DOS. The institute is chaired by one of the finest apolitical military minds of my generation. Gen (ret) Jack Keane is also a mentor, colleague, and friend. I am laughing trying to imagine his reaction to being labeled a neo-con.

I would agree it would be one of the last places a Donald Trump supporter should go for confirmation bias. On the other hand, it would be a great stop to learn something about international interests and conflict rather than merely repeat someone else's slogans. The Institute has been very critical in its analysis of the effect of slow and limited military support by the West - particularly this administration. It has been equally thorough in its assessment of Russian capabilities and tactics, and in Ukraine's abilities, successes, and failures on the battlefield.

The Institute is absolutely guilty of recognizing and writing to an audience that fully understands the United States' critical national interests do not end at the water's edge. To be fair we should forgive them assuming that would be self-evident to any educated person. But this is the age of Trump, where "America first" can be twisted into a new rendition of isolationism that the country hasn't seen since 1939. And the analysts do use a lot of three-syllable words.

No, I'll absolutely continue to recommend it as the best source on the war in Ukraine until someone can offer me a better one. I am confident you would benefit from actually reading it.

I didn't say Jack Keane was a Neo-Con, I said ISW is a biased neo-con source.

I say this because I am familiar with their work, along with AEI (rest assured I do actually read). I agree with you that people should read what the ISW puts out, as well as anything from the Kagan's and everyone over there. They should also be familiar with Kristol's work at PNAC, the Kagan's work with project for a new American Century, and any other of the many think tanks that are out there.

What is also important is to look at what these institutions said was going to happen/ should happen, and what actually ended up happening. They should also read opposing domestic opinions and analysis. Disagreeing with Bill Kristol, Frederick and Robert Kagan, and Victoria Nuland doesn't make you an uneducated person. Reading their work obviously helps people make more informed opinions about whether or not they support the positions of these institutions and the people leading them. These institutions have the ears of decision makers in Washington, so again, I do agree that people should pay attention to what they say. That being said, what comes from these institutions and these people isn't the gospel just because they say it is

Some examples...

In my opinion, Frederick Kagan's "We're not the Soviets in Afghanistan" from August of 2009 is a perfect example of someone from that circle getting it wrong. Specifically the last paragraph....

"there is absolutely no basis for assessing that an increased ISAF/US military presence along the lines being considered will result in some kind of "tipping point" at which local Afghans turn against us because they see us as a Soviet-style occupation force." -Frederick Kagan, 2009

He was wrong here. Compare coalition casualties before the 2009 surge, and after the 2009 surge, up until the initial troop drawdown in 2014, after which conventional ISAF troops were far less engaged in kinetic operations anyway, and ANA continued to take heavy losses. You could also look at the massive uptick in Green on Blue attacks after 2009.

In all fairness, the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan could have potentially been less shocking to most people had there been truthful reporting of the status of ANA, ANP, and ALP throughout the country, (especially the ANP) and the complete ineptitude of governance from the Provincial level down. Instead, what we got was constant lying in SITREPs and storyboards (especially from field grades and SOF TLs) about so many successes that realistically weren't happening. Too many people were afraid to be looked at as if they failed their mission, when in reality the mission creep of that conflict was beyond the pale of what should have been expected. So, in defense of the neo-cons (dammit) they were probably not getting the best information from the battlespace.

Also in my opinion, ISW's model for Syria which led to Timber Sycamore and the US led attempt to overthrow Assad is another example of that circle getting it wrong. The attempt at regime change in Syria has been a disaster, not only on a humanitarian level, but also in massively contributing to the migrant crisis in Europe, as well as in solidifying the relationship between Russia and Syria. I don't agree with their position that the overthrow of Assad needed to happen, even though they said it did.


ISW (to include Frederick Kagan) conducted this exercise IRT to Syria .....

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Syria Wargame Readout 812.pdf

Where they were very wrong about how much support and backing Assad would have from Russia....

"Whereas Turkey loomed large in the simulation, Russia was relegated to the bleachers. (The simulation did not have a Russian team, which some participants felt was a notable gap). Participants appeared to have assumed that Russia was effectively neutral (or neutralized), and would not attempt to deter Western intervention through pre-positioning military forces or undertaking any repeat of the Pristina excursion. Nor would Russia take any action to help remove Asad. All agreed, as has occurred, that Russia would block any UN Security Council resolution of significance."



This latest report from ISW and Frederick Kagan regarding potential outcomes of the Russia/Ukraine conflict may be accurate (or it may not be). My only point was that ISW and their staff DO have a hawkish neo-con bias, and they can get things very wrong (like any other organization).

 

[Red Leg]

I didn't say Jack Keane was a Neo-Con, I said ISW is a biased neo-con source.

I say this because I am familiar with their work, along with AEI (rest assured I do actually read). I agree with you that people should read what the ISW puts out, as well as anything from the Kagan's and everyone over there. They should also be familiar with Kristol's work at PNAC, the Kagan's work with project for a new American Century, and any other of the many think tanks that are out there.

What is also important is to look at what these institutions said was going to happen/ should happen, and what actually ended up happening. They should also read opposing domestic opinions and analysis. Disagreeing with Bill Kristol, Frederick and Robert Kagan, and Victoria Nuland doesn't make you an uneducated person. Reading their work obviously helps people make more informed opinions about whether or not they support the positions of these institutions and the people leading them. These institutions have the ears of decision makers in Washington, so again, I do agree that people should pay attention to what they say. That being said, what comes from these institutions and these people isn't the gospel just because they say it is

Some examples...

In my opinion, Frederick Kagan's "We're not the Soviets in Afghanistan" from August of 2009 is a perfect example of someone from that circle getting it wrong. Specifically the last paragraph....

"there is absolutely no basis for assessing that an increased ISAF/US military presence along the lines being considered will result in some kind of "tipping point" at which local Afghans turn against us because they see us as a Soviet-style occupation force." -Frederick Kagan, 2009

He was wrong here. Compare coalition casualties before the 2009 surge, and after the 2009 surge, up until the initial troop drawdown in 2014, after which conventional ISAF troops were far less engaged in kinetic operations anyway, and ANA continued to take heavy losses. You could also look at the massive uptick in Green on Blue attacks after 2009.

In all fairness, the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan could have potentially been less shocking to most people had there been truthful reporting of the status of ANA, ANP, and ALP throughout the country, (especially the ANP) and the complete ineptitude of governance from the Provincial level down. Instead, what we got was constant lying in SITREPs and storyboards (especially from field grades and SOF TLs) about so many successes that realistically weren't happening. Too many people were afraid to be looked at as if they failed their mission, when in reality the mission creep of that conflict was beyond the pale of what should have been expected. So, in defense of the neo-cons (dammit) they were probably not getting the best information from the battlespace.

Also in my opinion, ISW's model for Syria which led to Timber Sycamore and the US led attempt to overthrow Assad is another example of that circle getting it wrong. The attempt at regime change in Syria has been a disaster, not only on a humanitarian level, but also in massively contributing to the migrant crisis in Europe, as well as in solidifying the relationship between Russia and Syria. I don't agree with their position that the overthrow of Assad needed to happen, even though they said it did.


ISW (to include Frederick Kagan) conducted this exercise IRT to Syria .....

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Syria Wargame Readout 812.pdf

Where they were very wrong about how much support and backing Assad would have from Russia....

"Whereas Turkey loomed large in the simulation, Russia was relegated to the bleachers. (The simulation did not have a Russian team, which some participants felt was a notable gap). Participants appeared to have assumed that Russia was effectively neutral (or neutralized), and would not attempt to deter Western intervention through pre-positioning military forces or undertaking any repeat of the Pristina excursion. Nor would Russia take any action to help remove Asad. All agreed, as has occurred, that Russia would block any UN Security Council resolution of significance."



This latest report from ISW and Frederick Kagan regarding potential outcomes of the Russia/Ukraine conflict may be accurate (or it may not be). My only point was that ISW and their staff DO have a hawkish neo-con bias, and they can get things very wrong (like any other organization).

Of course they can be wrong. But the notion that they are "Neo-con" is blatantly absurd. Jack Kean is Chairman and President of the Institute. I would simply again note he would be equal parts amused and angry anyone considered he and the organization "Neo-con" or whatever you believe that term might mean.

It would seem your major issue is with Kagan. I actually won't argue with that specifically. I am of the crowd who believes had we been more aggressive in Torah Bora we would have been out of Afghanistan with Bin Laden's head in 24 months. Any other Afghanistan discussion would have been mute. I am also of the Army Arabist group who lobbied strongly if ineffectively against the incursion into Iraq - the most egregious Neo-con error.

However, with respect to defending American national interests, I am proudly hawkish wherever they may be threatened. That makes me a real American Firster - not a Neo-con. I suspect that is true of most of the leadership of the institute.

Their reporting on Afghanistan has been dead on to date. Far better than anything else mainstream or web. I will continue to strongly recommend them as a source until something better comes along.

 

[Corey0372]

Of course they can be wrong. But the notion that they are "Neo-con" is blatantly absurd. Jack Kean is Chairman and President of the Institute. I would simply again note he would be equal parts amused and angry anyone considered he and the organization "Neo-con" or whatever you believe that term might mean.

It would seem your major issue is with Kagan. I actually won't argue with that specifically. I am of the crowd who believes had we been more aggressive in Torah Bora we would have been out of Afghanistan with Bin Laden's head in 24 months. Any other Afghanistan discussion would have been mute. I am also of the Army Arabist group who lobbied strongly if ineffectively against the incursion into Iraq - the most egregious Neo-con error.

However, with respect to defending American national interests, I am proudly hawkish wherever they may be threatened. That makes me a real American Firster - not a Neo-con. I suspect that is true of most of the leadership of the institute.

Their reporting on Afghanistan has been dead on to date. Far better than anything else mainstream or web. I will continue to strongly recommend them as a source until something better comes along.

Correct, the Kagan's, Kristol, and Nuland are the ones from this circle I have the biggest issue with, and I don't think it's that controversial or that much of a stretch to call them neo-cons. I'm glad you did what you could to stop the Iraq War, I genuinely mean that. (Yes I did do a tour there, haha)

Believe it or not, the 3 part documentary that Vice put out in 2012-2013 titled "This is what winning looks like" (still on youtube maybe?) is probably the most accurate depiction of the Afghan war that I've seen. I know that sounds ridiculous but if you haven't seen it I would highly recommend it. (did a tour there too about the same time)

As far as what defending American National interests means, well that's subjective, and I suppose that's where reading as much as possible and making your case on African Hunting forums comes in.
Yes I'm saying this place is better than ISW and AEI, haha.

 

[fourfive8]

Well.......bye!

View attachment 574998

The POS is in good company. Seems half of Hollywood threatens the same thing every election. Unfortunately none ever do. There are Dems, Closet Dems, RINOS, Flavor of the Month Anarchists, and the rest a melting pot of Fly-Over-Country Repubs. Reading and listening to the monotone back and forth drivel of endless and meaningless, after the fact analysis is akin to the worst torture imaginable- listening to an endless and meaningless drone of sports stats banter or entertainment "news".