The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Support for Syrian Strikes
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Net support for the recent US airstrikes on Syria last week:

The partisan distribution meshes well with other polling data on related issues. Democrats are becoming the War Party. When young men from flyover country join the military, they’re becoming mercenaries for a force increasingly at odds with their values, their interests, and their communities.

Old Americans want war against perceived foreign enemies. Young Americans want war against perceived domestic ones.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Foreign Policy, Polling, War 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Any idea why YouGov uses this net approval metric? It seems deliberately misleading because it exaggerates the differential. For instance Democrats were 40% net approving while Republicans were 16% net approving. That translates to 70% of Dems approved, 30% disapproved, versus 58% of Republicans approved while 42% disapproved. Both parties showed majority approval of the strikes, but the YouGov methodology makes the chart look at first glance like the Democrats are more than twice as likely to approve.

    • Agree: Ian Smith
    • Replies: @Gordo
    @Alfa158

    Agreed, better at showing the differential but unclear otherwise.

    , @Talha
    @Alfa158

    You make a good point, but if you dig into the stats, you find 61% approval for Dems and 48% approval for Reps. You have to factor in the 19% and 20% (respectively) that said they had no opinion.

    Peace.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Alfa158

    That's on me. YouGov also includes "don't know" and "not sure" responses, so that makes just showing approval misleading too. Young people tend to have higher "not sure" rates than older ones, so just showing approval could imply that older people are more approving of something even though they also have higher disapproval than others. Separate bars for each is generally too clustered.

  2. This is hardcore stuff. Everything in these “Syrian Strikes” was morally and legally wrong.

    And stupid. Reminder that this is Russian air sector. And that the Russians just signalled to the Israelis to cut out THEIR airstrikes to avoid problems.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @El Dato

    A lot less people would have been killed if Assad had nipped things in the bud like his old man did in the early 1980s, you know. And for all the left-wing obsequiousness toward Tehran, doesn't anybody in DC realize that the Iranians care far more about who rules in Damascus than any papers signed in Geneva? The Iranians aren't stupid. They have to live in the region and consolidate what they can in case the house of cards in Riyadh collapses someday.

    This ain't 2000 anymore. America has the energy and resources to focus on one rival, and only one rival-and really, even that's a stretch considering the amount of domestic overhaul that's going to be needed after the last few decades. Neither Russia nor Iran has remotely the same power that the PRC does, nor do either of their vital security interests directly clash with America's. That doesn't mean I think Putin or the mullahs are nice guys, but it's time to prioritize. Cut whatever deals need to be cut with them, get out of the Middle East and Europe, and regroup.

    (And even with the PRC: it's not the Chinese who are screwing up America so badly. Nobody's forcing us to let our infrastructure rot or let government connected profit off of addiction and mass underemployment or misallocate American human capital. Americans are the ones doing that. The Chinese merely have a lot more ability to manipulate corrupt American elites. Chinese internal affairs are not our business. But American internal affairs aren't theirs, either. If some oligarchs and politicians need to be ruined to prove the point, then so be it.)

  3. This will keep up right up to the point where the US suffers its own version of the Varian Disaster (Roman).

    • Replies: @Realist
    @The Alarmist


    This will keep up right up to the point where the US suffers its own version of the Varian Disaster (Roman).
     
    The sooner, the better.
  4. It’s really disheartening to myself that older Americans 55+ who can remember the Vietnam era can be so blindly led into support of wars of choice such as Syria, which is really the great tragedy conflict of our time. Equally disheartening is how Dems who should understand how the Iraq war was an equal tragedy and useless event some two decades ago now think Syria is “okay”. But what really makes me crazy is how liberal media outlets seem to have forgotten the wars of the last two decades and how steadfastly they were against them. Orwell was a prophet.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @anon
    @jsinton

    Unlike the war in Vietnam, there are no Americans dying in the Syrian war. Americans are killing Syrians from afar, with bombings and drones. Americans only care about American lives.

    , @fnn
    @jsinton

    Dems are the War Party once again. They destroyed Libya in 2011 and tried to do the same thing to Syria starting in 2012. That year they began supporting armed groups wanting to overthrow Assad (including Al-Qaeda). In the 2016 campaign, Hillary kept calling for a no-fly zone over Syria that would surely have led to war with Russia. As presumably everyone remembers, Trump did try to end the US Syria intervention in the face of near open rebellion by the Pentagon. Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    , @Wyatt
    @jsinton

    You weren't paying attention if that's how you perceived things. WW1 and 2 were both championed by Democrat anglophiles who were more interested in aiding the English and Wall Street than actually supporting any just cause. Likewise, the Bush administration's wars were orchestrated largely by the neocons who were originally...wait for it... Trotskyites! Look up the Clean Break Papers to get a full understanding of just what was planned for the Middle East back in the 90s and who planned it. Pro-tip: it was the same people who orchestrated 9/11.

    Further, liberal media hasn't been anywhere close to liberal since the late 70s. The longer time has gone on, the more they've become dominated by Zionists. Do you not remember Wolf Blitzer and his giddy excitement when reporting on Coalition Forces blowing up Iraqi children during the "War on Terror"? Likewise, the dems never understood why the war in Iraq was bad. They all thought it was for oil plundering and defense contractor payouts. The Democrat voters were a broken clock in that time, but the Dem politicians knew exactly what was up and supported it anyway.

    Their support for Syrian strikes is completely expected. As long as it was a Democrat ruining countries, they gave no fucks when Obama destroyed Libya. If the left was really interested in peace, they'd be anti-war (and thus tacit Trump supporters as a result) on all occasions like the libertarians, not just when it's a Republican they can smear and use to score political points.

    Also, boomers are a cancer generation. They've hoarded the wealth they generated throughout their lives, depriving subsequent generations of the ability to own homes, pay bills or raise a family. Nixon may have opened China, but it's the boomers who sold us out to them totally under Clinton. There is no more a disgusting, selfish, entitled generation than the ones who would sell out their children for a wealthy retirement and an easy life while the country burns down. And to top off their horrendous behavior, they have the gall to pretend like millennials are worse than they are even though the boomers raised them and are responsible for not teaching their children lessons and guiding them through an increasingly difficult world, letting them get saddled with crippling college debt for useless degrees and being keen enough to send them off to die in some god forsaken shithole cuz "muh freedums."

  5. For information, here is how it was four years ago, when it was President Trump that struck Syria.

    If I grasp AE’s method, that was −4 among Democrats and +77 among Republicans.

    Anecdotally, four years ago, I remember thinking, “I hope that the president has a good reason,” reluctantly affording the president the tentative benefit of the doubt. I do not know how many felt similarly.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Catdog
    @V. K. Ovelund

    After the swamp creature cabinet picks, the syrian bombing was the second major red flag that made me realize Trump was a con.

    Replies: @A123

    , @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  6. I support military strikes on corporate journalists and neocon “think tanks.” Use white phosphorus for good measure

    • LOL: TomSchmidt
  7. @jsinton
    It's really disheartening to myself that older Americans 55+ who can remember the Vietnam era can be so blindly led into support of wars of choice such as Syria, which is really the great tragedy conflict of our time. Equally disheartening is how Dems who should understand how the Iraq war was an equal tragedy and useless event some two decades ago now think Syria is "okay". But what really makes me crazy is how liberal media outlets seem to have forgotten the wars of the last two decades and how steadfastly they were against them. Orwell was a prophet.

    Replies: @anon, @fnn, @Wyatt

    Unlike the war in Vietnam, there are no Americans dying in the Syrian war. Americans are killing Syrians from afar, with bombings and drones. Americans only care about American lives.

  8. fnn says:
    @jsinton
    It's really disheartening to myself that older Americans 55+ who can remember the Vietnam era can be so blindly led into support of wars of choice such as Syria, which is really the great tragedy conflict of our time. Equally disheartening is how Dems who should understand how the Iraq war was an equal tragedy and useless event some two decades ago now think Syria is "okay". But what really makes me crazy is how liberal media outlets seem to have forgotten the wars of the last two decades and how steadfastly they were against them. Orwell was a prophet.

    Replies: @anon, @fnn, @Wyatt

    Dems are the War Party once again. They destroyed Libya in 2011 and tried to do the same thing to Syria starting in 2012. That year they began supporting armed groups wanting to overthrow Assad (including Al-Qaeda). In the 2016 campaign, Hillary kept calling for a no-fly zone over Syria that would surely have led to war with Russia. As presumably everyone remembers, Trump did try to end the US Syria intervention in the face of near open rebellion by the Pentagon. Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @fnn


    Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.
     
    I keep hearing things like this.

    Some retired generals wrote a letter to explain their understanding of the traditional mode of interaction between U.S. armed forces and the civilian U.S. population. Maybe I missed something, but the notion that the Pentagon rebelled seems to lack a substantial basis in fact.

    Anti-Trumpism is largely furious and unreasonable (and I suspect that the aforementioned generals let themselves get sucked into that), but pro-Trumpists need not automatically leap to the opposite extreme.

    By the way, I did not know that the United States even had 280 generals. Does she?

    Replies: @fnn, @The Alarmist

    , @nebulafox
    @fnn

    "Civilians with rifles can't beat the American military". After Vietnam. And Afghanistan.

    I think there's an implicit assumption among our elite when they confidently assert the American military's effectiveness for suppressing domestic disorder that they'll be let off the leash with other Americans in a way that they refused to do with foreigners. Really speaks volumes about how they view their country. The Civil War 2.0 fantasies do have roots.

    Replies: @Catdog

  9. Iranian violence is a huge problem for everyone (not just the U.S.). The entire region has been destabilized by the Ayatollahs’ aggression. The Syrian and Lebanese people are all victims of sociopath Khameni. GW Bush created this problem with his failure in Iraq. One has to be deeply immoral & naive to believe that abandoning the innocent is good policy. Capitulation would embolden rampaging Evil and lead to the death of Americans here at home.

    What is amazing is the Fake Stream Media two-faced corruption trying to cover the issue.

     

     
    PEACE 😇

  10. @The Alarmist
    This will keep up right up to the point where the US suffers its own version of the Varian Disaster (Roman).

    Replies: @Realist

    This will keep up right up to the point where the US suffers its own version of the Varian Disaster (Roman).

    The sooner, the better.

  11. @fnn
    @jsinton

    Dems are the War Party once again. They destroyed Libya in 2011 and tried to do the same thing to Syria starting in 2012. That year they began supporting armed groups wanting to overthrow Assad (including Al-Qaeda). In the 2016 campaign, Hillary kept calling for a no-fly zone over Syria that would surely have led to war with Russia. As presumably everyone remembers, Trump did try to end the US Syria intervention in the face of near open rebellion by the Pentagon. Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.

    I keep hearing things like this.

    Some retired generals wrote a letter to explain their understanding of the traditional mode of interaction between U.S. armed forces and the civilian U.S. population. Maybe I missed something, but the notion that the Pentagon rebelled seems to lack a substantial basis in fact.

    Anti-Trumpism is largely furious and unreasonable (and I suspect that the aforementioned generals let themselves get sucked into that), but pro-Trumpists need not automatically leap to the opposite extreme.

    By the way, I did not know that the United States even had 280 generals. Does she?

    • Replies: @fnn
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The words "rebel" and "rebelled" have multiple meanings, ranging from "soft" to "hard."

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel

    rebel verb
    re·​bel | \ ri-ˈbel \
    rebelled; rebelling
    Definition of rebel (Entry 3 of 3)
    intransitive verb

    1a: to oppose or disobey one in authority or control
    b: to renounce and resist by force the authority of one's government
    2a: to act in or show opposition or disobedience
    rebelled against the conventions of polite society
    b: to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion
    rebelled at the injustice of life

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic

    , @The Alarmist
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There are 490 Generals (split between Army, Air Force and Marines) and 162 Amirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526. Then there are the officers of the Reserve components, but I’m too lazy to look for that count.

    There is also no shortage of retired generals and admirals willing to run their mouths on the networks, though most of them simply take high-paying jobs in the MIC and keep quiet. Being political animals, those who do speak out lean toward the Swamp view of things, which is why the networks like Faux news have to dig down to hacks like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

    Replies: @A123, @AndrewR

  12. @jsinton
    It's really disheartening to myself that older Americans 55+ who can remember the Vietnam era can be so blindly led into support of wars of choice such as Syria, which is really the great tragedy conflict of our time. Equally disheartening is how Dems who should understand how the Iraq war was an equal tragedy and useless event some two decades ago now think Syria is "okay". But what really makes me crazy is how liberal media outlets seem to have forgotten the wars of the last two decades and how steadfastly they were against them. Orwell was a prophet.

    Replies: @anon, @fnn, @Wyatt

    You weren’t paying attention if that’s how you perceived things. WW1 and 2 were both championed by Democrat anglophiles who were more interested in aiding the English and Wall Street than actually supporting any just cause. Likewise, the Bush administration’s wars were orchestrated largely by the neocons who were originally…wait for it… Trotskyites! Look up the Clean Break Papers to get a full understanding of just what was planned for the Middle East back in the 90s and who planned it. Pro-tip: it was the same people who orchestrated 9/11.

    Further, liberal media hasn’t been anywhere close to liberal since the late 70s. The longer time has gone on, the more they’ve become dominated by Zionists. Do you not remember Wolf Blitzer and his giddy excitement when reporting on Coalition Forces blowing up Iraqi children during the “War on Terror”? Likewise, the dems never understood why the war in Iraq was bad. They all thought it was for oil plundering and defense contractor payouts. The Democrat voters were a broken clock in that time, but the Dem politicians knew exactly what was up and supported it anyway.

    Their support for Syrian strikes is completely expected. As long as it was a Democrat ruining countries, they gave no fucks when Obama destroyed Libya. If the left was really interested in peace, they’d be anti-war (and thus tacit Trump supporters as a result) on all occasions like the libertarians, not just when it’s a Republican they can smear and use to score political points.

    Also, boomers are a cancer generation. They’ve hoarded the wealth they generated throughout their lives, depriving subsequent generations of the ability to own homes, pay bills or raise a family. Nixon may have opened China, but it’s the boomers who sold us out to them totally under Clinton. There is no more a disgusting, selfish, entitled generation than the ones who would sell out their children for a wealthy retirement and an easy life while the country burns down. And to top off their horrendous behavior, they have the gall to pretend like millennials are worse than they are even though the boomers raised them and are responsible for not teaching their children lessons and guiding them through an increasingly difficult world, letting them get saddled with crippling college debt for useless degrees and being keen enough to send them off to die in some god forsaken shithole cuz “muh freedums.”

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  13. By the way, I did not know that the United States even had 280 generals. Does she?

    There has been a great deal of “rank inflation” over the years. The U.S. Navy has 240 Admirals. There are likely ~750 Generals in the other branches.

    To be honest, I am surprised it is that low. No doubt the Harris/Burden regime will create new positions for DIE and Cultural Sensitivity Generals.

    PEACE 😇

  14. fnn says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @fnn


    Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.
     
    I keep hearing things like this.

    Some retired generals wrote a letter to explain their understanding of the traditional mode of interaction between U.S. armed forces and the civilian U.S. population. Maybe I missed something, but the notion that the Pentagon rebelled seems to lack a substantial basis in fact.

    Anti-Trumpism is largely furious and unreasonable (and I suspect that the aforementioned generals let themselves get sucked into that), but pro-Trumpists need not automatically leap to the opposite extreme.

    By the way, I did not know that the United States even had 280 generals. Does she?

    Replies: @fnn, @The Alarmist

    The words “rebel” and “rebelled” have multiple meanings, ranging from “soft” to “hard.”

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel

    rebel verb
    re·​bel | \ ri-ˈbel \
    rebelled; rebelling
    Definition of rebel (Entry 3 of 3)
    intransitive verb

    1a: to oppose or disobey one in authority or control
    b: to renounce and resist by force the authority of one’s government
    2a: to act in or show opposition or disobedience
    rebelled against the conventions of polite society
    b: to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion
    rebelled at the injustice of life

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @fnn

    Perhaps the word that best described their attitude would have been "mutiny."

  15. @Alfa158
    Any idea why YouGov uses this net approval metric? It seems deliberately misleading because it exaggerates the differential. For instance Democrats were 40% net approving while Republicans were 16% net approving. That translates to 70% of Dems approved, 30% disapproved, versus 58% of Republicans approved while 42% disapproved. Both parties showed majority approval of the strikes, but the YouGov methodology makes the chart look at first glance like the Democrats are more than twice as likely to approve.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone

    Agreed, better at showing the differential but unclear otherwise.

  16. @V. K. Ovelund
    @fnn


    Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.
     
    I keep hearing things like this.

    Some retired generals wrote a letter to explain their understanding of the traditional mode of interaction between U.S. armed forces and the civilian U.S. population. Maybe I missed something, but the notion that the Pentagon rebelled seems to lack a substantial basis in fact.

    Anti-Trumpism is largely furious and unreasonable (and I suspect that the aforementioned generals let themselves get sucked into that), but pro-Trumpists need not automatically leap to the opposite extreme.

    By the way, I did not know that the United States even had 280 generals. Does she?

    Replies: @fnn, @The Alarmist

    There are 490 Generals (split between Army, Air Force and Marines) and 162 Amirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526. Then there are the officers of the Reserve components, but I’m too lazy to look for that count.

    There is also no shortage of retired generals and admirals willing to run their mouths on the networks, though most of them simply take high-paying jobs in the MIC and keep quiet. Being political animals, those who do speak out lean toward the Swamp view of things, which is why the networks like Faux news have to dig down to hacks like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @A123
    @The Alarmist


    162 Admirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526
     
    Interesting. I found the 240+ number from a Statistica report, "Total military personnel of the U.S. Navy from the FY 2019 to FY 2021, by rank" (1)

        8 -- Admiral (O10)
      37 -- Vice Admiral (O9)
      60 -- Rear Admiral (UH) (O8)
    139 -- Rear Admiral (LH) (O7)

    Any idea why the actual number is so much higher than the USC number?

    There are some "temporary" positions and "frocked" Captains awaiting confirmation. But, I am hard pressed to believe those total 80+.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) The direct link activates a pay wall. Jumping to the article via a search engine avoids this.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/239345/total-military-personnel-of-the-us-navy-by-grade/

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    , @AndrewR
    @The Alarmist

    You mean general-grade officers. Only a tiny fraction of that group are generals.

  17. Mr. Epigone says:

    Old Americans want war against perceived foreign enemies. Young Americans want war against perceived domestic ones.

    I say:

    The perceptions of the young are right about the enemies of the American people and the historic American nation being domestic, inside the gate type treasonites.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    I wrote this in January of 2019:

    The globalizer JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire wants to smash the crud out of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States in order to atomize and splinter any cohesive force strong enough to resist the machinations of the ruling class.

    White Core America stands alone as the last holdout to the globalizer’s plan to make every man or woman bow down to their evil overlordship.

    These filth mugs in the ruling class are kept in power by electronics. How so?

    Electronic propaganda and an electronic currency.

    The evil JEW/WASP ruling class uses its control of the electronic propaganda to distract and manage the opinion of the American public.

    The evil JEW/WASP ruling class uses an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air to keep the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate inflated. This is a tactic designed to buy off certain generational cohorts to keep them quiet about the anti-White policies that the ruling class pushes.

    There is a reason that the mass immigration law in 1965 was followed by the repudiation of the gold standard in 1971.

    Identity Stalinism is better than Totalitarian Inclusivity. It is better sounding and more ominous to rant about Identity Stalinism and more fun.

    Politics has boiled down to this:

    Mass Immigration and Monetary Policy

    or,

    Demography and Debt

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/my-new-takis-column-identity-stalinism/#comment-2776210

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Charles Pewitt

    To be more Politically Correct, maybe we should blame the Rottenchild Crime Clan, the Zionist Real Estate Company, and International Bank$ters instead? To blame Chews is to risk being labeled an Anti-Termite.

    Apocalyptic Politics is all about the Love of Money, Big Banks and Power.

    God Help Us!

  18. @El Dato
    This is hardcore stuff. Everything in these "Syrian Strikes" was morally and legally wrong.

    And stupid. Reminder that this is Russian air sector. And that the Russians just signalled to the Israelis to cut out THEIR airstrikes to avoid problems.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    A lot less people would have been killed if Assad had nipped things in the bud like his old man did in the early 1980s, you know. And for all the left-wing obsequiousness toward Tehran, doesn’t anybody in DC realize that the Iranians care far more about who rules in Damascus than any papers signed in Geneva? The Iranians aren’t stupid. They have to live in the region and consolidate what they can in case the house of cards in Riyadh collapses someday.

    This ain’t 2000 anymore. America has the energy and resources to focus on one rival, and only one rival-and really, even that’s a stretch considering the amount of domestic overhaul that’s going to be needed after the last few decades. Neither Russia nor Iran has remotely the same power that the PRC does, nor do either of their vital security interests directly clash with America’s. That doesn’t mean I think Putin or the mullahs are nice guys, but it’s time to prioritize. Cut whatever deals need to be cut with them, get out of the Middle East and Europe, and regroup.

    (And even with the PRC: it’s not the Chinese who are screwing up America so badly. Nobody’s forcing us to let our infrastructure rot or let government connected profit off of addiction and mass underemployment or misallocate American human capital. Americans are the ones doing that. The Chinese merely have a lot more ability to manipulate corrupt American elites. Chinese internal affairs are not our business. But American internal affairs aren’t theirs, either. If some oligarchs and politicians need to be ruined to prove the point, then so be it.)

  19. @The Alarmist
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There are 490 Generals (split between Army, Air Force and Marines) and 162 Amirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526. Then there are the officers of the Reserve components, but I’m too lazy to look for that count.

    There is also no shortage of retired generals and admirals willing to run their mouths on the networks, though most of them simply take high-paying jobs in the MIC and keep quiet. Being political animals, those who do speak out lean toward the Swamp view of things, which is why the networks like Faux news have to dig down to hacks like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

    Replies: @A123, @AndrewR

    162 Admirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526

    Interesting. I found the 240+ number from a Statistica report, “Total military personnel of the U.S. Navy from the FY 2019 to FY 2021, by rank” (1)

        8 — Admiral (O10)
      37 — Vice Admiral (O9)
      60 — Rear Admiral (UH) (O8)
    139 — Rear Admiral (LH) (O7)

    Any idea why the actual number is so much higher than the USC number?

    There are some “temporary” positions and “frocked” Captains awaiting confirmation. But, I am hard pressed to believe those total 80+.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) The direct link activates a pay wall. Jumping to the article via a search engine avoids this.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/239345/total-military-personnel-of-the-us-navy-by-grade/

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @A123

    A number of general officers or admirals, up to 310 in joint-duty assignments, are exempted from the limitations; these are the types in OJCS, JSTPS, etc. At any time you will also have reserve officers on active duty for a limited period of time who do not count against the authorised strength. It’s also possible that there are a number of empty billets at any given time.

    The reserve component is covered by 10 USC §525, but that sets the authorisations for O-8 and up, and I think the authorised strength there is just under 400. You can also have plenty of O-7s when you start to count the National Guard.

  20. @fnn
    @jsinton

    Dems are the War Party once again. They destroyed Libya in 2011 and tried to do the same thing to Syria starting in 2012. That year they began supporting armed groups wanting to overthrow Assad (including Al-Qaeda). In the 2016 campaign, Hillary kept calling for a no-fly zone over Syria that would surely have led to war with Russia. As presumably everyone remembers, Trump did try to end the US Syria intervention in the face of near open rebellion by the Pentagon. Pentagon rebelled again when 280 generals told Trump that not a single troop would be sent to defend the WH when it was under attack by Antifa-BLM rioters last year.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @nebulafox

    “Civilians with rifles can’t beat the American military”. After Vietnam. And Afghanistan.

    I think there’s an implicit assumption among our elite when they confidently assert the American military’s effectiveness for suppressing domestic disorder that they’ll be let off the leash with other Americans in a way that they refused to do with foreigners. Really speaks volumes about how they view their country. The Civil War 2.0 fantasies do have roots.

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @nebulafox

    I don't think civilians with rifles *can* beat the US military, without major defections within the military. There is no organization, no leadership, little courage, and there's probably an FBI dossier and signed and sealed arrest warrant for anybody competent. People imagine that a civil war would be the government flailing around trying to figure out how to use F-16s to occupy street corners. They don't need to. They'll just have their ubiquitous spy devices and informers, and the fear of the same, prevent any kind of anti-gov force from even forming. I think the group that was planning to kidnap Witmer was only 16 and they were infiltrated.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  21. @V. K. Ovelund
    For information, here is how it was four years ago, when it was President Trump that struck Syria.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-04-12/KS%20Chart%202.png

    If I grasp AE's method, that was −4 among Democrats and +77 among Republicans.

    Anecdotally, four years ago, I remember thinking, “I hope that the president has a good reason,” reluctantly affording the president the tentative benefit of the doubt. I do not know how many felt similarly.

    Replies: @Catdog, @Talha

    After the swamp creature cabinet picks, the syrian bombing was the second major red flag that made me realize Trump was a con.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Catdog

    Only those with Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] fail to grasp that Senate confirmations are required for cabinet picks. Picks you disliked were most likely made by McConnell and other GOP(e) Swampies. The single worst mistake Trump made was exchanging value for Jeff "Judas" Sessions and his recusal.

    I hope you like your Biden's reign. In a system with only two sides, your #NeverTrump opposition to peace empowered the NeoConDemocrats. Congratulations!

    PEACE 😇

  22. @nebulafox
    @fnn

    "Civilians with rifles can't beat the American military". After Vietnam. And Afghanistan.

    I think there's an implicit assumption among our elite when they confidently assert the American military's effectiveness for suppressing domestic disorder that they'll be let off the leash with other Americans in a way that they refused to do with foreigners. Really speaks volumes about how they view their country. The Civil War 2.0 fantasies do have roots.

    Replies: @Catdog

    I don’t think civilians with rifles *can* beat the US military, without major defections within the military. There is no organization, no leadership, little courage, and there’s probably an FBI dossier and signed and sealed arrest warrant for anybody competent. People imagine that a civil war would be the government flailing around trying to figure out how to use F-16s to occupy street corners. They don’t need to. They’ll just have their ubiquitous spy devices and informers, and the fear of the same, prevent any kind of anti-gov force from even forming. I think the group that was planning to kidnap Witmer was only 16 and they were infiltrated.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Catdog

    Right. To the extent that Pelosi at all were really scared by Jan 6 rather than just using it as an excuse to consolidate power, they are probably scared of inertia. That is the only way a Civil War 2 .0 could start in the US today--something random happens spontaneously and uncoordinated and then just keeps growing.

    (Well, or maybe if there secession like in Civil War 1.0.)

    In the case of an actual conflict, I think it's hard to tell how well rebels could do. In terms of combat, they couldn't match the military, but a Civil war would be much more than just combat. There would be political and economic chaos, and a lot of general disorder from the breakdown of supply chains, etc. The longer any conflict could carry on, the less chance the military would have, it seems to me.

  23. @Catdog
    @V. K. Ovelund

    After the swamp creature cabinet picks, the syrian bombing was the second major red flag that made me realize Trump was a con.

    Replies: @A123

    Only those with Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] fail to grasp that Senate confirmations are required for cabinet picks. Picks you disliked were most likely made by McConnell and other GOP(e) Swampies. The single worst mistake Trump made was exchanging value for Jeff “Judas” Sessions and his recusal.

    I hope you like your Biden’s reign. In a system with only two sides, your #NeverTrump opposition to peace empowered the NeoConDemocrats. Congratulations!

    PEACE 😇

  24. @A123
    @The Alarmist


    162 Admirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526
     
    Interesting. I found the 240+ number from a Statistica report, "Total military personnel of the U.S. Navy from the FY 2019 to FY 2021, by rank" (1)

        8 -- Admiral (O10)
      37 -- Vice Admiral (O9)
      60 -- Rear Admiral (UH) (O8)
    139 -- Rear Admiral (LH) (O7)

    Any idea why the actual number is so much higher than the USC number?

    There are some "temporary" positions and "frocked" Captains awaiting confirmation. But, I am hard pressed to believe those total 80+.

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) The direct link activates a pay wall. Jumping to the article via a search engine avoids this.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/239345/total-military-personnel-of-the-us-navy-by-grade/

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    A number of general officers or admirals, up to 310 in joint-duty assignments, are exempted from the limitations; these are the types in OJCS, JSTPS, etc. At any time you will also have reserve officers on active duty for a limited period of time who do not count against the authorised strength. It’s also possible that there are a number of empty billets at any given time.

    The reserve component is covered by 10 USC §525, but that sets the authorisations for O-8 and up, and I think the authorised strength there is just under 400. You can also have plenty of O-7s when you start to count the National Guard.

    • Thanks: A123
  25. @fnn
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The words "rebel" and "rebelled" have multiple meanings, ranging from "soft" to "hard."

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel

    rebel verb
    re·​bel | \ ri-ˈbel \
    rebelled; rebelling
    Definition of rebel (Entry 3 of 3)
    intransitive verb

    1a: to oppose or disobey one in authority or control
    b: to renounce and resist by force the authority of one's government
    2a: to act in or show opposition or disobedience
    rebelled against the conventions of polite society
    b: to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion
    rebelled at the injustice of life

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic

    Perhaps the word that best described their attitude would have been “mutiny.”

  26. @Alfa158
    Any idea why YouGov uses this net approval metric? It seems deliberately misleading because it exaggerates the differential. For instance Democrats were 40% net approving while Republicans were 16% net approving. That translates to 70% of Dems approved, 30% disapproved, versus 58% of Republicans approved while 42% disapproved. Both parties showed majority approval of the strikes, but the YouGov methodology makes the chart look at first glance like the Democrats are more than twice as likely to approve.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone

    You make a good point, but if you dig into the stats, you find 61% approval for Dems and 48% approval for Reps. You have to factor in the 19% and 20% (respectively) that said they had no opinion.

    Peace.

  27. @V. K. Ovelund
    For information, here is how it was four years ago, when it was President Trump that struck Syria.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-04-12/KS%20Chart%202.png

    If I grasp AE's method, that was −4 among Democrats and +77 among Republicans.

    Anecdotally, four years ago, I remember thinking, “I hope that the president has a good reason,” reluctantly affording the president the tentative benefit of the doubt. I do not know how many felt similarly.

    Replies: @Catdog, @Talha

    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.

    Peace.

    • Agree: dfordoom, EldnahYm
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.
     
    I do not know. Good question. Probably not.

    All I can do is what you can do, though: to look at the numbers; to consider what persons I know in real life have said on the topic; to add my own, off-kilter anecdote.

    U.S. Republicans seem still to lack a clear notion of who is driving the U.S. into these wars and why. I should like to give Republicans six months of balanced news coverage of [a] the broken lives of the bereaved slain by U.S. military action, [b] the broken lives of maimed U.S. veterans, [c] a fair, ethnically representative cross-section of everyday U.S. incidents of violent crime, and [d] on-screen identification of the ethnicities of newsworthy public officials. After that, I would like to see such a poll conducted again.

    Replies: @Talha

  28. @Charles Pewitt
    Mr. Epigone says:

    Old Americans want war against perceived foreign enemies. Young Americans want war against perceived domestic ones.

    I say:

    The perceptions of the young are right about the enemies of the American people and the historic American nation being domestic, inside the gate type treasonites.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety and security and sovereignty of the United States of America.

    I wrote this in January of 2019:

    The globalizer JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire wants to smash the crud out of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States in order to atomize and splinter any cohesive force strong enough to resist the machinations of the ruling class.

    White Core America stands alone as the last holdout to the globalizer’s plan to make every man or woman bow down to their evil overlordship.

    These filth mugs in the ruling class are kept in power by electronics. How so?

    Electronic propaganda and an electronic currency.

    The evil JEW/WASP ruling class uses its control of the electronic propaganda to distract and manage the opinion of the American public.

    The evil JEW/WASP ruling class uses an electronic currency conjured up out of thin air to keep the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate inflated. This is a tactic designed to buy off certain generational cohorts to keep them quiet about the anti-White policies that the ruling class pushes.

    There is a reason that the mass immigration law in 1965 was followed by the repudiation of the gold standard in 1971.

    Identity Stalinism is better than Totalitarian Inclusivity. It is better sounding and more ominous to rant about Identity Stalinism and more fun.

    Politics has boiled down to this:

    Mass Immigration and Monetary Policy

    or,

    Demography and Debt

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/my-new-takis-column-identity-stalinism/#comment-2776210

    Replies: @Anon

    To be more Politically Correct, maybe we should blame the Rottenchild Crime Clan, the Zionist Real Estate Company, and International Bank$ters instead? To blame Chews is to risk being labeled an Anti-Termite.

    Apocalyptic Politics is all about the Love of Money, Big Banks and Power.

    God Help Us!

  29. @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.

    I do not know. Good question. Probably not.

    All I can do is what you can do, though: to look at the numbers; to consider what persons I know in real life have said on the topic; to add my own, off-kilter anecdote.

    U.S. Republicans seem still to lack a clear notion of who is driving the U.S. into these wars and why. I should like to give Republicans six months of balanced news coverage of [a] the broken lives of the bereaved slain by U.S. military action, [b] the broken lives of maimed U.S. veterans, [c] a fair, ethnically representative cross-section of everyday U.S. incidents of violent crime, and [d] on-screen identification of the ethnicities of newsworthy public officials. After that, I would like to see such a poll conducted again.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It would help if they were exposed to reports showing that the Taliban won partially because the side we backed was seen as corrupt and incapable of delivering basic justice to the average Afghan:
    “Few Afghans interviewed for this research had good things to say about the Taliban regime of the 1990s, but often caveated their remarks with an appreciation for Taliban justice.
    The state justice system’s weak capacity and corruption, in this case, worked in the Taliban’s favour. In adjudicating land and resource disputes in particular, interviewees viewed the Taliban as responding to community needs that the government had failed to address. Sharia courts have increased the Taliban’s legitimacy, undermined the state and given the Taliban an advantage in what David Kilcullen refers to as ‘the war for competitive control’ (Kilcullen, 2011; Ledwidge, 2009; Weigand, 2017). Here, the Taliban needs only to be seen as less bad than the government – something it has broadly achieved with its courts. Unlike the government system, Taliban courts are widely accessible in rural areas, have uncomplicated procedures that are easy to follow, have judges who typically settle disputes quickly, and have considerably lower levels of perceived corruption.”
    https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/taliban_justice_briefing_note_web_final.pdf

    That’s a pretty bad indictment of foreign policy of adventurism under both Red and Blue administrations.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  30. In full agreement with Gen Z. Eagerly awaiting the first drone strikes on Q-boomers.

  31. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    So basically, most of this boils down to whether the guy calling the strikes wears a blue tie or a red one as far as public support is concerned.
     
    I do not know. Good question. Probably not.

    All I can do is what you can do, though: to look at the numbers; to consider what persons I know in real life have said on the topic; to add my own, off-kilter anecdote.

    U.S. Republicans seem still to lack a clear notion of who is driving the U.S. into these wars and why. I should like to give Republicans six months of balanced news coverage of [a] the broken lives of the bereaved slain by U.S. military action, [b] the broken lives of maimed U.S. veterans, [c] a fair, ethnically representative cross-section of everyday U.S. incidents of violent crime, and [d] on-screen identification of the ethnicities of newsworthy public officials. After that, I would like to see such a poll conducted again.

    Replies: @Talha

    It would help if they were exposed to reports showing that the Taliban won partially because the side we backed was seen as corrupt and incapable of delivering basic justice to the average Afghan:
    “Few Afghans interviewed for this research had good things to say about the Taliban regime of the 1990s, but often caveated their remarks with an appreciation for Taliban justice.
    The state justice system’s weak capacity and corruption, in this case, worked in the Taliban’s favour. In adjudicating land and resource disputes in particular, interviewees viewed the Taliban as responding to community needs that the government had failed to address. Sharia courts have increased the Taliban’s legitimacy, undermined the state and given the Taliban an advantage in what David Kilcullen refers to as ‘the war for competitive control’ (Kilcullen, 2011; Ledwidge, 2009; Weigand, 2017). Here, the Taliban needs only to be seen as less bad than the government – something it has broadly achieved with its courts. Unlike the government system, Taliban courts are widely accessible in rural areas, have uncomplicated procedures that are easy to follow, have judges who typically settle disputes quickly, and have considerably lower levels of perceived corruption.”
    https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/taliban_justice_briefing_note_web_final.pdf

    That’s a pretty bad indictment of foreign policy of adventurism under both Red and Blue administrations.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha

    Question: insofar as the United States and NATO have been so long in Afghanistan, do we not owe something to the Afghan minority that have aligned with us?

    If so, what do we owe them?

    I suppose that, if we just pulled out, our Afghan collaborators would suffer vengeance.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Talha, @Talha

  32. @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It would help if they were exposed to reports showing that the Taliban won partially because the side we backed was seen as corrupt and incapable of delivering basic justice to the average Afghan:
    “Few Afghans interviewed for this research had good things to say about the Taliban regime of the 1990s, but often caveated their remarks with an appreciation for Taliban justice.
    The state justice system’s weak capacity and corruption, in this case, worked in the Taliban’s favour. In adjudicating land and resource disputes in particular, interviewees viewed the Taliban as responding to community needs that the government had failed to address. Sharia courts have increased the Taliban’s legitimacy, undermined the state and given the Taliban an advantage in what David Kilcullen refers to as ‘the war for competitive control’ (Kilcullen, 2011; Ledwidge, 2009; Weigand, 2017). Here, the Taliban needs only to be seen as less bad than the government – something it has broadly achieved with its courts. Unlike the government system, Taliban courts are widely accessible in rural areas, have uncomplicated procedures that are easy to follow, have judges who typically settle disputes quickly, and have considerably lower levels of perceived corruption.”
    https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/taliban_justice_briefing_note_web_final.pdf

    That’s a pretty bad indictment of foreign policy of adventurism under both Red and Blue administrations.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Question: insofar as the United States and NATO have been so long in Afghanistan, do we not owe something to the Afghan minority that have aligned with us?

    If so, what do we owe them?

    I suppose that, if we just pulled out, our Afghan collaborators would suffer vengeance.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @V. K. Ovelund

    They aligned with the foreigners for their own reasons, not to help the US per se.

    A healthier empire could give them and their descendents sort of permanent residency, without the possibility of citizenship, that would be revocable if they acted criminally. But such a concept is utterly alien to current year Americans, just like the idea of putting refugees in camps then returning them home when it's safe. To our rulers, every person on earth is an Undocumented American.

    , @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t know; I guess it would be good to work out a reconciliation and amnesty agreement and commitment from the Taliban. But I have also read that the Taliban are going after men involved with bacha bazi abuse in their provinces - some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.

    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Also, sorry if I don’t respond to any further responses; Ramadan is not too far away, I’ve been advised to cut back massively on social media (and any forums I’m on) in spiritual preparation.

    Stay well. Best to you and others.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  33. @The Alarmist
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There are 490 Generals (split between Army, Air Force and Marines) and 162 Amirals authorised for Active Duty under 10 USC §526. Then there are the officers of the Reserve components, but I’m too lazy to look for that count.

    There is also no shortage of retired generals and admirals willing to run their mouths on the networks, though most of them simply take high-paying jobs in the MIC and keep quiet. Being political animals, those who do speak out lean toward the Swamp view of things, which is why the networks like Faux news have to dig down to hacks like Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

    Replies: @A123, @AndrewR

    You mean general-grade officers. Only a tiny fraction of that group are generals.

  34. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha

    Question: insofar as the United States and NATO have been so long in Afghanistan, do we not owe something to the Afghan minority that have aligned with us?

    If so, what do we owe them?

    I suppose that, if we just pulled out, our Afghan collaborators would suffer vengeance.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Talha, @Talha

    They aligned with the foreigners for their own reasons, not to help the US per se.

    A healthier empire could give them and their descendents sort of permanent residency, without the possibility of citizenship, that would be revocable if they acted criminally. But such a concept is utterly alien to current year Americans, just like the idea of putting refugees in camps then returning them home when it’s safe. To our rulers, every person on earth is an Undocumented American.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha

    Question: insofar as the United States and NATO have been so long in Afghanistan, do we not owe something to the Afghan minority that have aligned with us?

    If so, what do we owe them?

    I suppose that, if we just pulled out, our Afghan collaborators would suffer vengeance.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Talha, @Talha

    I don’t know; I guess it would be good to work out a reconciliation and amnesty agreement and commitment from the Taliban. But I have also read that the Taliban are going after men involved with bacha bazi abuse in their provinces – some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.

    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    ... some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.
     
    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won't get collaborators next time.

    Not that I want there to be a next time, but disloyalty has a cost.


    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.
     
    Or for Pakistanis and Tajiks to fill our place as we leave. Then it's no longer our problem.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  36. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha

    Question: insofar as the United States and NATO have been so long in Afghanistan, do we not owe something to the Afghan minority that have aligned with us?

    If so, what do we owe them?

    I suppose that, if we just pulled out, our Afghan collaborators would suffer vengeance.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Talha, @Talha

    Also, sorry if I don’t respond to any further responses; Ramadan is not too far away, I’ve been advised to cut back massively on social media (and any forums I’m on) in spiritual preparation.

    Stay well. Best to you and others.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Talha

    'Also, sorry if I don’t respond to any further responses; Ramadan is not too far away, I’ve been advised to cut back massively on social media (and any forums I’m on) in spiritual preparation...'

    Ah. That's what happened to you.

    Well, good. It's definitely a best case. I have to grant, Unz Review probably isn't good for the soul. However, hopefully you'll be back soon.

  37. @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don’t know; I guess it would be good to work out a reconciliation and amnesty agreement and commitment from the Taliban. But I have also read that the Taliban are going after men involved with bacha bazi abuse in their provinces - some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.

    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    … some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.

    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.

    Not that I want there to be a next time, but disloyalty has a cost.

    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.

    Or for Pakistanis and Tajiks to fill our place as we leave. Then it’s no longer our problem.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.
     
    That would be a very very good thing.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  38. The Zion Pig Empire is LOSING.
    It must withdraw soon from Afghanistan.

    Iran is not afraid. Russia and China are STRONG.
    The Zionists are EVEN NOW diversifying their forces to nullify its effectiveness.

    Stupid is and Stupid does. The Zionists slit their own throats with their policies.
    Soon they will begin to LOSE ACROSS THE WHOLE BOARD.

    The Zionists want so much to attack Iran, but they cannot win in Syria.
    The Russians are about to shoot down some jets I figure.

    While the Zionists have been looting the Defense Budget.
    Russia and China have UPGRADED their capabilities.

    Greed will KILL the Zionists. It always does…

    • Troll: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @Dr. Doom

    Added to BLOCKED COMMENTERS list for lying, racism, and degenerate TROLLING.

    We are not laughing with you. We are laughing at you.

    PEACE 😇

  39. @Dr. Doom
    The Zion Pig Empire is LOSING.
    It must withdraw soon from Afghanistan.

    Iran is not afraid. Russia and China are STRONG.
    The Zionists are EVEN NOW diversifying their forces to nullify its effectiveness.

    Stupid is and Stupid does. The Zionists slit their own throats with their policies.
    Soon they will begin to LOSE ACROSS THE WHOLE BOARD.

    The Zionists want so much to attack Iran, but they cannot win in Syria.
    The Russians are about to shoot down some jets I figure.

    While the Zionists have been looting the Defense Budget.
    Russia and China have UPGRADED their capabilities.

    Greed will KILL the Zionists. It always does...

    Replies: @A123

    Added to BLOCKED COMMENTERS list for lying, racism, and degenerate TROLLING.

    We are not laughing with you. We are laughing at you.

    PEACE 😇

  40. @Catdog
    @nebulafox

    I don't think civilians with rifles *can* beat the US military, without major defections within the military. There is no organization, no leadership, little courage, and there's probably an FBI dossier and signed and sealed arrest warrant for anybody competent. People imagine that a civil war would be the government flailing around trying to figure out how to use F-16s to occupy street corners. They don't need to. They'll just have their ubiquitous spy devices and informers, and the fear of the same, prevent any kind of anti-gov force from even forming. I think the group that was planning to kidnap Witmer was only 16 and they were infiltrated.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Right. To the extent that Pelosi at all were really scared by Jan 6 rather than just using it as an excuse to consolidate power, they are probably scared of inertia. That is the only way a Civil War 2 .0 could start in the US today–something random happens spontaneously and uncoordinated and then just keeps growing.

    (Well, or maybe if there secession like in Civil War 1.0.)

    In the case of an actual conflict, I think it’s hard to tell how well rebels could do. In terms of combat, they couldn’t match the military, but a Civil war would be much more than just combat. There would be political and economic chaos, and a lot of general disorder from the breakdown of supply chains, etc. The longer any conflict could carry on, the less chance the military would have, it seems to me.

  41. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    ... some of these people were our allies, but I don’t think we need to veil them from justice/punishment.
     
    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won't get collaborators next time.

    Not that I want there to be a next time, but disloyalty has a cost.


    Another possible idea is to negotiate for some collaborators to settle in surrounding countries like Pakistan or Tajikistan, etc.
     
    Or for Pakistanis and Tajiks to fill our place as we leave. Then it's no longer our problem.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.

    That would be a very very good thing.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom



    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.
     
    That would be a very very good thing.
     
    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.

    If I could change the past, then I would have had the U.S. and NATO simply destroy and/or disrupt the Afghan state in 2002, departing Afghanistan within a year of entry, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess as they saw fit. However, that didn't happen. As it is, the U.S. and NATO are insufficiently bankrupt to justify the blithe dissolution of obligations unwisely undertaken.

    To the extent practicable, NATO must leave its Afghan collaborators in a tenable position. The collaborators presumably know better than we what is tenable and what is not, so NATO should give them options and let them collectively choose. After that, it's up to them.

    By the way, collaborators are probably always wrong, regardless of the circumstance—just as spies are always wrong—but when they're our collaborators, we've got to treat them right nevertheless.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  42. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.
     
    That would be a very very good thing.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.

    That would be a very very good thing.

    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.

    If I could change the past, then I would have had the U.S. and NATO simply destroy and/or disrupt the Afghan state in 2002, departing Afghanistan within a year of entry, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess as they saw fit. However, that didn’t happen. As it is, the U.S. and NATO are insufficiently bankrupt to justify the blithe dissolution of obligations unwisely undertaken.

    To the extent practicable, NATO must leave its Afghan collaborators in a tenable position. The collaborators presumably know better than we what is tenable and what is not, so NATO should give them options and let them collectively choose. After that, it’s up to them.

    By the way, collaborators are probably always wrong, regardless of the circumstance—just as spies are always wrong—but when they’re our collaborators, we’ve got to treat them right nevertheless.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.
     
    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people's countries and you won't get a reputation for treachery.

    Whatever problems a person may have landed himself in by collaborating with a foreign power is his problem. If you let such vermin into the United States they'll cause you more problems in the future. They'll start agitating for more US interference in Afghanistan.

    What to do with those collaborators is Afghanistan's problem, not America's. Let them sort it out.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  43. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom



    The trouble is that if the U.S. abandons collaborators this time, she won’t get collaborators next time.
     
    That would be a very very good thing.
     
    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.

    If I could change the past, then I would have had the U.S. and NATO simply destroy and/or disrupt the Afghan state in 2002, departing Afghanistan within a year of entry, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess as they saw fit. However, that didn't happen. As it is, the U.S. and NATO are insufficiently bankrupt to justify the blithe dissolution of obligations unwisely undertaken.

    To the extent practicable, NATO must leave its Afghan collaborators in a tenable position. The collaborators presumably know better than we what is tenable and what is not, so NATO should give them options and let them collectively choose. After that, it's up to them.

    By the way, collaborators are probably always wrong, regardless of the circumstance—just as spies are always wrong—but when they're our collaborators, we've got to treat them right nevertheless.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.

    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people’s countries and you won’t get a reputation for treachery.

    Whatever problems a person may have landed himself in by collaborating with a foreign power is his problem. If you let such vermin into the United States they’ll cause you more problems in the future. They’ll start agitating for more US interference in Afghanistan.

    What to do with those collaborators is Afghanistan’s problem, not America’s. Let them sort it out.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people’s countries and you won’t get a reputation for treachery.
     
    For an U.S. citizen like me to take the side of a foreigner like you against the U.S. federal government in a matter of foreign policy, regardless of the U.S. citizen's private opinion, is bad form. I do not know how to square my form with the open nature of an Internet discussion, so rather than compounding my error, permit me to retire from the debate.

    Remember that my son is a U.S. soldier, as were I and my father before me. I am not a disinterested party.

    Replies: @RSDB

  44. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Good for you, perhaps. For my country to gain, or to add to, a reputation for feckless treachery would not be good for me.
     
    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people's countries and you won't get a reputation for treachery.

    Whatever problems a person may have landed himself in by collaborating with a foreign power is his problem. If you let such vermin into the United States they'll cause you more problems in the future. They'll start agitating for more US interference in Afghanistan.

    What to do with those collaborators is Afghanistan's problem, not America's. Let them sort it out.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people’s countries and you won’t get a reputation for treachery.

    For an U.S. citizen like me to take the side of a foreigner like you against the U.S. federal government in a matter of foreign policy, regardless of the U.S. citizen’s private opinion, is bad form. I do not know how to square my form with the open nature of an Internet discussion, so rather than compounding my error, permit me to retire from the debate.

    Remember that my son is a U.S. soldier, as were I and my father before me. I am not a disinterested party.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @V. K. Ovelund

    There are an awful lot of Afghans who do or have done business with NATO, probably including a number of Taliban members. Real life is complicated.

    Anyway the likelihood of the US completely leaving Afghanistan any time soon seems pretty low to me, though I doubt my predictions are worth much.

    Regarding the fall of the original Taliban state, it always seemed odd to me that the international community seemed more or less OK with their rule until three things happened in what seems, when I think about it, like rather quick succession (though I have no theories linking these things):

    1. The Taliban drastically cuts opium production
    2. The Buddhas get blown up
    3. 9/11

  45. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The best way to avoid such a reputation is for the US to avoid dealing with collaborators in the first place. Stop interfering in other people’s countries and you won’t get a reputation for treachery.
     
    For an U.S. citizen like me to take the side of a foreigner like you against the U.S. federal government in a matter of foreign policy, regardless of the U.S. citizen's private opinion, is bad form. I do not know how to square my form with the open nature of an Internet discussion, so rather than compounding my error, permit me to retire from the debate.

    Remember that my son is a U.S. soldier, as were I and my father before me. I am not a disinterested party.

    Replies: @RSDB

    There are an awful lot of Afghans who do or have done business with NATO, probably including a number of Taliban members. Real life is complicated.

    Anyway the likelihood of the US completely leaving Afghanistan any time soon seems pretty low to me, though I doubt my predictions are worth much.

    Regarding the fall of the original Taliban state, it always seemed odd to me that the international community seemed more or less OK with their rule until three things happened in what seems, when I think about it, like rather quick succession (though I have no theories linking these things):

    1. The Taliban drastically cuts opium production
    2. The Buddhas get blown up
    3. 9/11

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  46. @Alfa158
    Any idea why YouGov uses this net approval metric? It seems deliberately misleading because it exaggerates the differential. For instance Democrats were 40% net approving while Republicans were 16% net approving. That translates to 70% of Dems approved, 30% disapproved, versus 58% of Republicans approved while 42% disapproved. Both parties showed majority approval of the strikes, but the YouGov methodology makes the chart look at first glance like the Democrats are more than twice as likely to approve.

    Replies: @Gordo, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone

    That’s on me. YouGov also includes “don’t know” and “not sure” responses, so that makes just showing approval misleading too. Young people tend to have higher “not sure” rates than older ones, so just showing approval could imply that older people are more approving of something even though they also have higher disapproval than others. Separate bars for each is generally too clustered.

  47. @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Also, sorry if I don’t respond to any further responses; Ramadan is not too far away, I’ve been advised to cut back massively on social media (and any forums I’m on) in spiritual preparation.

    Stay well. Best to you and others.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Also, sorry if I don’t respond to any further responses; Ramadan is not too far away, I’ve been advised to cut back massively on social media (and any forums I’m on) in spiritual preparation…’

    Ah. That’s what happened to you.

    Well, good. It’s definitely a best case. I have to grant, Unz Review probably isn’t good for the soul. However, hopefully you’ll be back soon.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS