It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
Yet, if a US soldier dies building the fiasco dock thing in Gaza, all hades will fall on Israel.
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
What are, our leaders thinking???
Oh they're not, that's what they get paid for.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
Sonny Magoo wrote:
What are, our leaders thinking???
Oh they're not, that's what they get paid for.
I would disagree.
The senior military officials are thinking about their future job, with a military contractor, upon retiring.
Members of Congress are increasing their portfolio returns from their investments in said military contractors.
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
A bit of trivia. Kennedy had already okayed plans to withdraw all troops from Vietnam, over a period of about 18 months.
https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-ordered-full-withdrawal-vietnam-solid-evidence/https://aarclibrary.org/jfk-had-ordered-full-withdrawal-from-vietnam-solid-evidence/https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/This was the official US policy on the day he got a bullet in the head. He had also taken steps to marginalize the Federal Reserve and replace them with US notes which were already being printed.
LBJ takes over, and instead of troop withdrawal, we went from 17,000 to over one half million troops. The US Notes were canceled.
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
"Lead from behind." The advisors are why so many think we lost in Viet Nam, the t***h is advisors jumped the gun in racing for the surrender papers. Ahh, the airplanes that won't fly. A perfect oxymoron for the Ukraine, a toothless pit bull. However, the Pentagon will still back them. Crazy? Psychopathic? Suicidal? All 3.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
MidnightRider wrote:
"Lead from behind." The advisors are why so many think we lost in Viet Nam, the t***h is advisors jumped the gun in racing for the surrender papers. Ahh, the airplanes that won't fly. A perfect oxymoron for the Ukraine, a toothless pit bull. However, the Pentagon will still back them. Crazy? Psychopathic? Suicidal? All 3.
Patton may have said it best:
” No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair."
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
Gotta keep the weapons flowing!! It's a cash cow except the cow is the American tax payer.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
nwtk2007 wrote:
Gotta keep the weapons flowing!! It's a cash cow except the cow is the American tax payer.
A cash cow for the military contractors and innumerable elected officials of both parties.
AuntiE wrote:
A cash cow for the military contractors and innumerable elected officials of both parties.
American government so corrupt, filled with corruption and yet we point our fingers at others.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
nwtk2007 wrote:
American government so corrupt, filled with corruption and yet we point our fingers at others.
Think about this. The times we have had a government shutdown, nary a citizen has been impacted. If those classified as
non essential were not missed, why do we need them on the payroll? We do not.
I had an uncle in Texas.
Uncle Dudley.
He was a Major in the Air Force and when we went to see them he would tell me how great his military stocks were doing.
He named off the defense companies.
I heard LBJ made a k*****g in Helicopter stock.
John Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam.
As mentioned above he had issued orders to bring our troops home.
JFK was k**led and LBJ kept the war going and made millions on helicopter stock.
More wars, more military industrial Stock investors make. Money Laundering deal like Ukcraine.
Wake up folks...
AuntiE wrote:
It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept Prepares to Beef Up Number of US Advisers in Ukraine
By: streiff
The Department of Defense is considering upping the number of US military advisers stationed in Ukraine. Politico said, "The advisers would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military."
“Throughout this conflict, the DOD has reviewed and adjusted our presence in-country, as security conditions have evolved. Currently, we are considering sending several additional advisers to augment the Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) at the Embassy,” Ryder said in a statement to POLITICO, noting that “personnel are subject to the same travel restrictions as all embassy employees.
The ODC “performs a variety of advisory and support missions (non-combat), and while it is staffed exclusively by DOD personnel, it is embedded within the U.S. Embassy, under Chief of Mission authority like the rest of the Embassy,” Ryder added.
Ryder declined to discuss specific numbers of personnel “for operational security and force protection reasons.”
According to the most recent data (December 2023), 18 Army/Air Force personnel and one Department of Defense civilian are assigned to Ukraine. Two anonymous US officials say that number could rise to 60.
The role of the current group of soldiers assigned to Ukraine is to provide security for the US embassy, as Defense data indicates there are no Marines in Ukraine, and oversee the accountability of weapons and equipment. The new group will assist the Ukrainians with developing maintenance facilities for US-made weapons systems.
While necessary to comply with the level of accountability of weapons and ammunition demanded by Congress and the Department of Defense, the atmospherics are terrible. One of the constant drumbeats one hears on social media is the inevitability of US "boots on the ground" (where else would boots be? Other than up your butt). The unfortunate use of the word "advisers" will cause split aortas all over the rather large pro-Russia, pro-Putin segment of the online right.
The US has successfully deployed advisers into hot conflicts without mishaps or the US becoming embroiled in a war. The last such instance was in El Salvador during Reagan's campaign to roll back c*******m. The role of advisers in South Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) did not lead to war but reflected a greater US role in a war inherited from the French. The role of those advisers was combat-oriented; this is not the case in Ukraine. One of the critical roles of US advisers in Southeast Asia was training indigenous armies. This is done today by sending Ukrainian units out of Ukraine to the UK, Germany, or other locations for training.
Under a worst-case scenario, a Russian attack on US advisers only results in direct combat between US and Russian troops if the US president decides to pursue that course of action. There is no legal requirement that the deaths of American servicemen be followed by a massive troop deployment. In fact, the last forty or so years of US diplomatic history indicate that the quickest way to get America out of an area is by k*****g some Americans (see Beirut and Mogadishu).
Calling US troops in Ukraine "advisers" is the kind of footshot that we've grown accustomed to from the Biden Defense and State Departments. Claiming that advisers inevitably mean direct conflict with Russian forces is the kind of hyperbolic conspir****m that parts of the right insist on trafficking in because they don't want to be taken seriously.
When the first US soldier dies, remember you wanted this. You howled hysterically for more and more funding. You never considered further ramifications.
Oh, by the way, Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors thank you very sincerely.
b It's 'Vietnam All Over Again' As Defense Dept P... (
show quote)
MOHD said he saw that coming a mile away and feels one of two things are going to happen. They'll either end it right before the e******n or get involved with troops on the ground and try to resurrect the special circumstances of war and staying in power they had used in WWII (I believe). I'll have to see if I can find that article again.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
