Comments by "Gary VAQ" (@stlouisix1) on "Alex Christoforou" channel.

  1. 135
  2. 134
  3. 133
  4. 132
  5. 131
  6. 127
  7. 126
  8. 126
  9. 125
  10. 125
  11. 125
  12. 124
  13. 124
  14. 121
  15. The Battle of Borodino was the apogee of Napoleon’s reckless attempt to conquer Russia and set the stage for his ensuing defeat — French losses in securing their “victory” at Borodino, left them decimated and unable to finish the war they started. Napoleon and his commanders hunkered down in Moscow for a short period but then, with the onset of an early winter, realized they faced annihilation if they stayed and chose to try to return to France. They lacked the logistics to sustain themselves in a zone of conflict. The long, deadly retreat from Moscow, marked the nadir of the French military in that campaign, having entered Russia with an army of 600,000 men and escaped with only 16% of the force still intact. Losing 500,000 soldiers is not a recipe for victory. The Borodino strategy is not confined to Ukraine. The United States is intent on going to war with China. That is insanity. Just as Napoleon’s deep incursion into Russia stretched his lines of communications (i.e. logistics) to the point of collapse, the United States is talking about a military confrontation with China that it cannot sustain. The lesson of Borodino is that a war of attrition favors the power that is closest to its supply lines. It is a lesson the West, especially America, refuses to learn. One other lesson from Borodino — even though Napoleon’s army suffered terrible losses, Napoleon maintained his insatiable thirst for conquest and refused to find a path to peace. It was that unquenched desire that led him ultimately to Waterloo. The Western quest to dominate Russia and China is likely to lead to a 21st Century Waterloo for America and Europe. Yes, history rhymes. - Sonar21
    120
  16. 120
  17. 120
  18. 119
  19. 119
  20. 117
  21. 116
  22. 116
  23. Jordan is a US ally and as such American troops stationed on its territory – while in our opinion extremely unwise – are not illegally occupying foreign soil. However, if as is likely this facility was inside the Syrian border it means US troops illegally occupying Syrian territory were hit. In other words, a foreign occupying force was attacked by people defending their homeland. That’s a very different story and one that Washington’s warmongers would rather Americans back home not ponder. Most Americans likely do not understand that US forces are illegally occupying a large portion of Syrian territory – a country with which Washington is not legally at war – and therefore any Americans killed in Syria may result in the public starting to ask, “why exactly are we there”? Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has never seen a war he doesn’t want other people to fight, has offered his own explanation as to why US troops are getting killed in Syria: “Our forces in Jordan and Syria are there to protect the American homeland.” But as thousands illegally enter our actual American homeland every day with total impunity, it is a claim that is unlikely to resonate with most Americans. Nevertheless Graham, a one-hit wonder, has posted his advice to respond to the Iraqi Resistance drone strike on the US base in Syria: “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.” Iraq attacks an illegal US base in Syria? Attack Iran. His morning decaf mocha frap latte from Starbucks is cold? Attack Iran. One hit wonder. If Graham’s fever dreams are fulfilled and the US launches an attack on Iran with nearly a Vietnam-sized contingent of American “sitting ducks” in the region, there is a very good chance America may finally take notice. 35,000 Americans in body bags to satisfy Lindsey’s perverse lust for blood could well finally focus America’s attention on the malevolent force that has maintained an iron grip on US foreign policy regardless of whether R’s or D’s are “running the show.” Let’s hope America wakes up before this happens. Iraq has already demanded that the US remove its occupation troops immediately and the Iraqi parliament voted nearly four years ago that US troops must leave the country. The DC establishment claimed that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to “restore democracy,” but when the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament voted for the US military to end its occupation of the country…Washington said “no” to democracy. Nobody wants US troops in the region except for Israel, which has just been found to be possibly committing genocide in Gaza. Is this really the crowd we want to run with? Maybe we can just come home? - LewRockwell
    115
  24. 113
  25. 111
  26. 111
  27. 110
  28. 109
  29. 109
  30. 108
  31. 108
  32. 106
  33. 105
  34. 104
  35. 102
  36. 102
  37. 101
  38. 100
  39. 99
  40. 99
  41. 96
  42. 94
  43. 94
  44. 94
  45. 94
  46. 93
  47. 93
  48. 93
  49. 92
  50. 90