Posts Tagged war

Ukrainian Politician Wants To Expand Gun Rights

From The Washington Times:

Months before the Russian invasion, Mr. Zablotskyy took on his country’s civilian gun-control system that was inherited from the former Soviet Union when he introduced a bill to allow private ownership of firearms.

“I tried to convince parliament. I was the sponsor of the bill that allowed the ownership of private firearms within Ukraine. Unfortunately, that bill has failed. And, largely, of course, due to the Russian lobby,” he told The Washington Times. “Now we, of course, understand why. I think that now there’s overwhelming support for the right of Ukrainians to bear arms.”

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Independence Is All Or Nothing

From National Review:

It is obvious that Russia’s attempt to dictate to Ukraine what alliances it may join and what kind of foreign relations it may pursue is a limit on Ukrainian sovereignty. But it is also a limit on American sovereignty, British sovereignty, German sovereignty, French sovereignty, and the sovereignty of every other NATO country. An alliance is a two-way relationship, and if Moscow has the power to foreclose it on one end, it has the power to foreclose it on the other end. We must not cede such power to Moscow.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The US Should Sell Weapons To Any Country For Defense

From The Federalist:

For the record, I have consistently warned against American interventions and nation-building for more than 30 years. I agree with John Quincy Adams that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Learning The Wrong Lesson. For Gun Haters, Gun Control Can Solve Anything.

From The Press Herald:

But how do we start a debate about global gun control to put pressure on someone like Putin to stop waging wars on innocent people?

….everyone everywhere should start talking about demilitarizing the world, or guns will undoubtedly kill many more millions in many more cities.

Gun control will not stop tyrants. What stops tyrants is a citizenry that is armed and trained in those arms. When every citizen is a possible combatant/insurgent that makes tyrants and despots think twice about controlling their own people or invading another people. To prevent more atrocities we need gun proliferation across the world. Everyone on this planet should know how to use a gun even if they don’t like them. Knowledge is power and knowing how to use a gun is even more powerful.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

AP Reporter Challenges State Dept Spokesman On Russia

From C-SPAN:

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

National Review: US Should Defend Taiwan

From National Review:

The fundamental reason is, counterintuitively, China’s awesome power, and the very real danger that this power, if allowed to expand too far, will pose to Americans’ prosperity and freedom. The United States should defend Taiwan because it is important to deny China hegemony over Asia, by far the world’s largest market area. If China could dominate Asia, as it has made increasingly clear it seeks to do, Beijing would determine the terms, tempo, and distribution of global economic power. This would have the most profound and direct implications for Americans’ economic fortunes and, because our economic security is tightly linked to our freedom, it would ultimately endanger our liberties. A China dominant over Asia would have the power and wealth to dictate to Americans, fundamentally altering — and undermining — our national life.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

A Marine Learns Lessons From The Taliban

From Twitter user Lysander The God:

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Republic of China President Takes Bold Stance Against CCP

From The Federalist:

Taiwan will not bend the knee to an increasingly aggressive communist China, the country’s president says, warning that the defeat of the island nation would signal that “authoritarianism has the upper hand over democracy” in today’s “global contest of values.”

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Dr. Michael Scheuer on the Tragedy of Afghanistan That Didn’t Have To Be

From Non-intervention2.com:

There was never an easier military or diplomatic problem for the United States than post-9/11 Afghanistan. The answer to the problem was clear. With, as always, Marines in the lead, send a quarter-million man ground force with more than abundant aerial support to conduct a c. 15-month campaign of retribution. The job could have been done by early 2003.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Fallen Soldier: Narrated by Jocko Willink

From PragerU:

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

What Is America’s Role?

From The Washington Examiner:

So how do we advance freedom and our other global interests if not through empire building or global policing? We do it through alliances.
Our most advantageous alliances are often the oldest. The “Five Eyes” intelligence cooperation between us and Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand began in 1956. But even 63 years later, it continues to deliver the crown jewels of global counter-proliferation, counterterrorism, and counter-hostile state intelligence. We should never forget that the most important ingredient of intelligence is not the tools, or even the people; it is the trust and shared values between those people. That is why the alliance sustains and why it continues to deliver.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Academic Paper Re-examines The Second Amendment

From David T. Hardy:

This article proposes third approach, which is better founded in the historical record. The militia clause and the right to arms clause are completely separate concepts. They have different origins, one looking back to the Renaissance, the other forward to the Enlightenment. In 1787-91 they largely had different constituencies: some Americans were concerned that the new Congress would neglect the militia, others that it might disarm the people. For most of this period, drafters of State declarations of rights, or of proposals for a Federal bill of rights, chose either to praise the militia as an institution, or to guarantee an individual right to arms, but never both.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Navy SEAL: America Not Willing To Make Necessary Sacrifices

From London Real:

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Soldier Sues President For Fighting ISIS Without Congressional Authorization

From The New York Times:

The plaintiff, Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, voiced strong support for fighting the Islamic State but, citing his “conscience” and his vow to uphold the Constitution, he said he believed that the conflict lacked proper authorization from Congress.

“To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” he wrote.

The legal challenge comes after the death of the third American service member fighting the Islamic State and as Mr. Obama has decided tosignificantly expand the number of Special Operations ground troops he has deployed to Syria aid rebels there.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Strategy in Real Time: Dueling with an Enemy That Moves

Strategy in Real Time: Dueling with an Enemy That Moves is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

By Philip Bobbitt

Strategy is a two-way street. But many commentators act as though formulating a strategy is the same as solving a chess problem. Chess problems are artificially constructed arrangements on a chessboard where the goal is to find a series of moves that leaves the other side no room to evade a checkmate within three or four turns. The sorts of conflicts bedeviling us these days, however, are more like the game of chess itself, in which there is no determinate, continuous series of moves that will guarantee victory every time. Each new contest depends on the actions of the other side, how we react to them, how they respond to our reactions, and so on.

Ignoring this aspect of strategy seems to contribute to the widespread view that victory in warfare amounts to the destruction of the enemy, a facile assumption that is all too unthinkingly held. “Defeating the enemy” may be the definition of victory in football, or even in chess for that matter, but not in warfare. Victory in war is the achievement of the war aim, and if, after Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, we still think that victory is simply the devastation of our adversaries, we have a lot of reflecting to do. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments