stevestojan Posted September 7 Posted September 7 4 minutes ago, Wacka said: Stop talking about yourself and Homeloser. you are absolutely awful at this, bud.
B-Man Posted September 7 Posted September 7 Back to the thread Please read. Re: The Department of War This is not some simple publicity stunt. Starting back in the 80s with Goldwater-Nichols and then carrying over into the "interagency" fetish post-9/11, our military became more interested in how it could look and act like the State Department then in how it could eradicate our enemies in the most violent and expeditious manner possible. Nowhere was this more evident than the first impeachment of President Trump thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander “Chow Thief” Vindman. If you recall, Vindman initiated an impeachment of his Commander-in-Chief because he disagreed with the President’s lawful authority over foreign policy. More specifically, there was an “interagency” consensus that Trump allegedly ignored, so this dumpy, midwit lieutenant colonel decided he knew best and in the process tore our nation apart. However, Vindman was and is a mere symptom of far more metastasized cancer. A cancer where the leaders of our uniformed services forgot who and what they are. They are not diplomats. They are not civil service employees of some federal department. They are not politicians. They are WARRIORS—or at least they are supposed to be. Their singular purpose is to close with and destroy our nation’s enemies. The “Department of War” is a necessary and vital symbolic move that recaptures the heart of the warrior. It tells our own nation and our adversaries this: No more Vindmans. No more Milleys. No more McChrystals. No more idiotic rules of engagement that serve only to kill young American troops. No more disgraceful retreats from the Taliban. No more nation-building. No more bringing “democracy” to 8th Century tribal goons. Nope. Now when we fight, we kill and we destroy and we win and we come home. THAT IS WAR. That’s why the “Department of War” is so very, very important. . 1 1 1
stevestojan Posted September 7 Posted September 7 41 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Hundreds of millions? How so? I won’t Google for you because undoubtedly any link I post will be too far left for you. But here’s a tidbit. And your most recent post is making me think you will defend this administration even on some really stupid things like this; perhaps not at open minded as you claim to be. This is purely a waste of money. It’s silly in every way. “A 2022 report by the Naming Commission to Congress found that efforts by the Department of Defense to change the names of all military assets that honor Confederate leaders, which would be less widespread than this initiative, would cost an estimated $62.5 million.” That is a fraction of the effort this will take; signage alone will be an insane waste of money.
JDHillFan Posted September 7 Posted September 7 3 hours ago, stevestojan said: I won’t Google for you because undoubtedly any link I post will be too far left for you. But here’s a tidbit. And your most recent post is making me think you will defend this administration even on some really stupid things like this; perhaps not at open minded as you claim to be. This is purely a waste of money. It’s silly in every way. “A 2022 report by the Naming Commission to Congress found that efforts by the Department of Defense to change the names of all military assets that honor Confederate leaders, which would be less widespread than this initiative, would cost an estimated $62.5 million.” That is a fraction of the effort this will take; signage alone will be an insane waste of money. Here’s my defense of this from a few days ago: On 8/30/2025 at 8:38 PM, JDHillFan said: If it costs even a nickel to do this it’s too much. Just do your job please.
stevestojan Posted September 7 Posted September 7 13 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Here’s my defense of this from a few days ago: Ok, cool. So you’re now against it the because it will cost many billion nickels. Anyway, it’s now the season so I’ll see you all in February. Go bills.
nedboy7 Posted September 7 Posted September 7 18 hours ago, B-Man said: Back to the thread Please read. Re: The Department of War This is not some simple publicity stunt. Starting back in the 80s with Goldwater-Nichols and then carrying over into the "interagency" fetish post-9/11, our military became more interested in how it could look and act like the State Department then in how it could eradicate our enemies in the most violent and expeditious manner possible. Nowhere was this more evident than the first impeachment of President Trump thanks to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander “Chow Thief” Vindman. If you recall, Vindman initiated an impeachment of his Commander-in-Chief because he disagreed with the President’s lawful authority over foreign policy. More specifically, there was an “interagency” consensus that Trump allegedly ignored, so this dumpy, midwit lieutenant colonel decided he knew best and in the process tore our nation apart. However, Vindman was and is a mere symptom of far more metastasized cancer. A cancer where the leaders of our uniformed services forgot who and what they are. They are not diplomats. They are not civil service employees of some federal department. They are not politicians. They are WARRIORS—or at least they are supposed to be. Their singular purpose is to close with and destroy our nation’s enemies. The “Department of War” is a necessary and vital symbolic move that recaptures the heart of the warrior. It tells our own nation and our adversaries this: No more Vindmans. No more Milleys. No more McChrystals. No more idiotic rules of engagement that serve only to kill young American troops. No more disgraceful retreats from the Taliban. No more nation-building. No more bringing “democracy” to 8th Century tribal goons. Nope. Now when we fight, we kill and we destroy and we win and we come home. THAT IS WAR. That’s why the “Department of War” is so very, very important. . It is a publicity stunt. By the guy who wants a Nobel Peace Price.
JDHillFan Posted September 7 Posted September 7 2 hours ago, stevestojan said: Ok, cool. So you’re now against it the because it will cost many billion nickels. Anyway, it’s now the season so I’ll see you all in February. Go bills. You wrapped it up in fine fashion. Truly dimwitted. 1
reddogblitz Posted September 8 Posted September 8 On 9/5/2025 at 1:10 PM, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Why not? It sounds badass! OK that's cool. Thanks for the answer. I can think of million$ and million$ of reasons why not when we're or at least were trying to cut waste. So agree to disagree.
Recommended Posts