Hillary Will Prove That a Woman Can Do What Napoleon and Hitler Failed At:
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Conquer Russia!
Follow @steve_sailer
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Commenters to ignore (one per line)
Commenters to follow (one per line)
Trim Comments?
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSSPastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Well, if she and the press get us to rumble with Russia, even if it doesn’t go nuclear that’s that for world order for the next 100 years. A country can attempt to be hegemon but it needs at least some nations to believe it is a rational actor in order to do so. If we secure a (universal) reputation for being unstable and irrational it’s all over.
There is no safe way to put us down, though. We've got the ability to project power with our conventional arms, and we'd likely respond with nukes if someone, say, sank all our carriers. So, how should the world go about managing our decline?
Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China”. It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.
Field Marshal Montgomery
Vey!
You might as well be quoting Genghis Kahn on rules for shooting arrows from a pony, old man. War games aren't chess anymore. It's poker, and you better bet right.Replies: @Dr. X
If a GOP candidate was as bellicose with Russia as Clinton has been, the MSM would without hesitation savage such a candidate as a lunatic warmonger. We have no pressing vital interests in Syria. To go to war with Russia or even consider doing so is patently insane. Questions need be asked; Mrs. Clinton-what is the vital US interest at stake in Syria justifying American military involvement and the resulting deaths? What are the objectives? What is the exit strategy? Instead the MSM has allowed her the cheap empty grace of making Putin a bogeyman without discussing the costs of such stupidity in life and treasure. And brought a porn star or 3 forward to suddenly remember that Donald Trump may have grabbed their ass at a golf tournament banquet 25 years ago. Issues, indeed. We are in fact DOOMED.
The bias of the MSM has always been there but now it's so extreme as to be absurd. Trump criticized Hillary on gun control by saying something along the lines of I'd like to see her give up her armed security. Pro-gun people have criticized the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians and celebrities in this way countless times. The MSM pretends to believe that Trump was calling for Hillary's assassination. I say pretends because it is impossible that they are stupid enough to misunderstand Trump in this way. This was a completely manufactured controversy based on a lie.
On the other hand, a Democrat/Hillary campaign operative admits on camera that they use and incite violence and very little is heard except on Drudge, Breitbart, etc. What would the reaction have been if a tape emerged of someone affiliated with Trump saying the same thing?
Is that an actual Montgomery quote? Guessing it is, but at this point in human history we can have an infinite number of pithy quotes as far as a single human mind is concerned.
And I can’t possibly google everything that looks interesting. That’s the way wiki walks start, and that is a very bad thing. And the possibility exists that walk will take you to TVTropes, and well… that’s a whole day gone there practically.
On another note, concerning this “book of war.” Here and there I’ve seen other references to this. I realize it’s not like a compiled thing circulated to military leaders on photocopied pages worldwide.
But in the past I’ve seen stuff referenced as being from the book that basically said stuff like:
1) Never willingly assault an enemy position with less than 3 to 1 odds in your favor.
2) If the enemy is dug in on a hill, then you want 6 to 1.
3) You need ? occupying troops for every 100 people in an occupied area; depending on circumstances this could be higher. (Forget the number but it is pretty high, something like 3 or 4 – which makes a whole lot of what the US has been trying to do since WWII “against the book.”
Does anyone know where there is a sort of collection of these rules of thumb somewhere?
As regards the things like assaulting positions, my take always was that it is pretty universal that you have a bond with the people you fight with. Even if you could take something with less than 3 to 1 odds, you want to go in with overwhelming force so you win with low fatalities to your side, as opposed to a pyrrhic victory. And the “odds” are a diminishing returns kind of thing.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1962/may/30/the-army-estimates#S5LV0241P0-00791
The Hansard is like the Congressional Record in the US - the official transcript of the proceedings of Parliament.
So many "famous" quotes are invented or attributed to the wrong people, but this is not one of them. Although Rule 2 often gets edited down to the more pithy "never fight a land war in Asia".
1) An army travels on its stomach.
2) In war, morale is to materiel as 3 is to 1.
--attributed to Napoleon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
This winter, I presume?
I don’t think it worked out well for Swedish King Charles XII either.
The alt right has revealed itself to be cowards of the first order. Never in my life have I seen such spineless and lack of patriotism.
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.
I think you forgot about China.
Wait a minute. Tiny's a Reaganite?
Color me unsurprised.
Well trolled, Tiny Duck, well trolled.
Unfortunately.
Thank you all for providing such quotable materials about your schemes. Will be good to bring up when people question the reality of such plans. Really helpful
Not as smart as you thought you were, huh. In war with Russia, i will be the commissar sending you in the first wave
Presumably, a war between the US and Russia will be worse for Russia. (I’m not talking nuclear annihilation here; a limited war.) A weakened Russia would be good for its neighbours, including China. Whether what’s good for China is good for the world, I cannot say.
Why not? G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and our generals tried to conquer Afghanistan – something Alexander the Great couldn’t do.
Someday, America will be exceptional only in failure.
Steve, I think you’re pushing this trope beyond the point of being amusing.
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she’s not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn’t have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn’t think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons — as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she’ll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she’s spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what’s acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she’s not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.
She is seriously dangerous. Whether she is more or less dangerous than that bizarre lunatic McCain is an interesting question. But the fact that you have to reach that far to find someone arguably more dangerous is itself indicative of how bad she is.
Hillary doesn't see military service as an honorable calling because she sees soldiers as tools.Replies: @Dan Hayes
Remember, she's had the personal protection of the Secret Service and the US government since 1992. That's a long time to get used to being protected, and her attitude towards getting her own skin into trouble is utter complacency. She knows she's not going to be assassinated by anyone in retaliation because they can't get through to her.
No, its not. One look at her history says otherwise.
Believe what you wish. But please consider abstention this time.
Every statement made in your defense of Hillary is utterly and unequivocally wrong. One of the many instances of her evil incompetence is her diabolical role in the destruction of Libya and her cacklingly evil gloat regarding the torture and death of Gaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."
If Hillary gets us into a nuclear war with Russia, I'll feel so much better knowing that her heart wasn't really in it.Replies: @guest
My only point is that warmongering is primarily a Republican vice, not a Democratic one, and if you fail to see that, you're probably not thinking clearly on this matter. When Democrats get tough on national security, it's an attempt at triangulation, to build political capital with Republicans.
This is not to say that Trump is more of a warmonger than Hillary. I'd expect Trump to be either one of the most warlike or least warlike presidents in recent history. Hillary would be average warlike for a Democrat.
Just like Angela Merkel may ultimately be responsible for more women being raped than any person since Genghis Khan.
You’ve come a long way baby……
The U.S. has all of its bitches out doing tricks. UK, NATO countries, Baltic countries, et. al. The neocons have been moving against Russia ever since Russia thwarted them in overthrowing Syria with jihadis. That was the beginning of the Ukraine meddling and revolution.
But I think it will go nuclear quickly. But to paraphrase General Buck Turgidson, “We’re only looking at 100-150 million killed. Tops.”
Kind of like that new European Army led by Germany and France … It will march on Russia and promptly surrender.
Hey iSteve, 2 Napoleons invaded Russia, Napoleon I, and wacky Napoleon III. I am thinking Bush II through Obama I to a prospective Clinton II have more in common with wacky Napoleon III and his wacky Empire II, than somewhat serious rationalist Napoleon I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
Other wacky Empire II adventures that sound like Iraqistan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
Hillary Will Prove That a Woman Can Do What The Napoleons and Hitler Failed At:
Probably a bunch of also ran invasions of Russia by countries like Sweden and Poland by their respective tyrants too.
“If I had succeeded, I should have been the greatest man known to history.” -Napoleon
This is a very famous graph; I suppose what Napoleon said was true, but there is also a non-zero chance that every atom in your body could suddenly decide it's momentum vector was in a trajectory towards Alpha Centauri.
You might have to wait for the life span of a 100 universes say, but at least the chance is not zero.
If Russia donates to Clinton Foundation there will be no war. Can Russia outbid the neocons?
OT (I mentioned the UK troop moves to Estonia elsewhere)
The Globalist Explains : Why do South African protests often turn violent?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-23
(there’s also a piece, non-ironic, about Ivanka and the ‘Donald Dynasty’)
It won’t be a landwar this time, so that’s a point in her favour. Today you don’t have to march on Moscow to burn it. It will be a case of “ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant”. So Hillary is indeed the peace candidate.
Field Marshal MontgomeryReplies: @Sean, @Connecticut Famer, @szopen, @yowza
Montgomery was too slow to catch and crush far weaker opponent Rommel, and succeeded to the extent he did because he moved only with total superiority (he insisted on a massive increase in the the number of divisions planned to be landed for the D day invasion). Rule 1 is follow up even a limited success, breaking that rule got Admiral Byng the death penalty.
Napoleon was trying to bring Russia to terms, not conquer and his major error was in not advancing on Moscow while with all possible speed while destroying the fleeing disorganized Russian soldiery.
Hitler also did not go straight for Moscow (which the Russians would be forced to defend thus enabling the Russian arm to be destroyed) he stopped for a couple of months. The belated offensive succeeded to the extent that Stalin ordered a evacuation of the higher government from the city, which led to a panic-stricken general exodus that was only suppressed by NVKD summary road side executions on all leaving. Stalin was also in a panic and ran away to his dascha. The German offensive ran into the worst winter in recorded history, they could have done it easily they stuck to the plan.
Conquering Russia is well within US capabilities. Germany still has the potential power to do it, given time for a build up.
Politicians hate it when you do that. It embarrasses them by demonstrating how bad they are at preparing for combat.Replies: @republic
Great, I cannot wait. Let's all vote for Hillary.Replies: @antipater_1
With or without trannies?
I think we have found Hillary's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Sean is volunteering for the job.
You are, evidently, a fool.
Field Marshal MontgomeryReplies: @Sean, @Connecticut Famer, @szopen, @yowza
The Mongol Golden Horde marched upon and conquered much of Rooshia in the 14th century, only to be eventually overthrown. And the Yoo Ess of Aay, led by that old bag, ain’t The Golden Horde though she may have delusions of grandeur as the second coming of Genghis Khan.
Vey!
I haven’t seen any definitive articles about Hillary starting a war with Russia, which, of course, would be foolhardy. What I have seen today are a number of tweets indicating that the Hillary administration will draft young women, surely these must of the satiric variety, under the hashtags #FightForHillary and #DraftOurDaughters
It seems the biggest scandal in the last few days which has been played up heavily by the (paywalled) Wall Street Journal concerns another wikileaks showing the extent to which the various “Clinton Foundations” are a mix of philanthropy, personal enrichment, and political maneuvering.
I wonder if it’s possible to impeach someone before they take the oath of office.
http://imgur.com/SyPgKFj
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
Wow, you make Russia sound great! I want to be on their side!
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
So we must elect someone who can’t be pressured.
And I can't possibly google everything that looks interesting. That's the way wiki walks start, and that is a very bad thing. And the possibility exists that walk will take you to TVTropes, and well... that's a whole day gone there practically.
On another note, concerning this "book of war." Here and there I've seen other references to this. I realize it's not like a compiled thing circulated to military leaders on photocopied pages worldwide.
But in the past I've seen stuff referenced as being from the book that basically said stuff like:
1) Never willingly assault an enemy position with less than 3 to 1 odds in your favor.
2) If the enemy is dug in on a hill, then you want 6 to 1.
3) You need ? occupying troops for every 100 people in an occupied area; depending on circumstances this could be higher. (Forget the number but it is pretty high, something like 3 or 4 - which makes a whole lot of what the US has been trying to do since WWII "against the book."
Does anyone know where there is a sort of collection of these rules of thumb somewhere?
As regards the things like assaulting positions, my take always was that it is pretty universal that you have a bond with the people you fight with. Even if you could take something with less than 3 to 1 odds, you want to go in with overwhelming force so you win with low fatalities to your side, as opposed to a pyrrhic victory. And the "odds" are a diminishing returns kind of thing.Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @flyingtiger
Yes, it is 100% real and accurate:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1962/may/30/the-army-estimates#S5LV0241P0-00791
The Hansard is like the Congressional Record in the US – the official transcript of the proceedings of Parliament.
So many “famous” quotes are invented or attributed to the wrong people, but this is not one of them. Although Rule 2 often gets edited down to the more pithy “never fight a land war in Asia”.
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
So a Hillary presidency means we’ll just have another Vietnam. Oh, well that’s totally worth having the first woman in the Oval Office then…
/pol/ and the twitterati have supposedly got #DraftOurDaughters trending.
I wonder how many countries’ foreign offices currently consider us stable and rational. We’ve been acting pretty crazy since about the mid 90s. Madeleine Halfwit really set the stage for what we’ve been up to in the post Cold War world.
There is no safe way to put us down, though. We’ve got the ability to project power with our conventional arms, and we’d likely respond with nukes if someone, say, sank all our carriers. So, how should the world go about managing our decline?
Adam Grant says:
Top 17 Reasons To Vote For Hillary
1. Armed same group in Syria and Libya that brought down Twin Towers in New York City!
2. Approved tens of billions of dollars in arms sales to Qatar and Saudi Arabia knowing that those countries were arming ISIS. Helping Turkey and our Gulf State allies beat back Iranian hegemony!
3. Reagan wanted Russia to be part of the Western Alliance, but Stephen Cohen, Professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton and NYU, says Hillary will risk a thermonuclear exchange to thwart Putin. Girl power!
4. Hillary supported our military-industrial complex by arming Al Qaeda and other terrorist jihadis in Syria and Libya while bombing them in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Think about it! Brilliant!
5. Many U.S. aquifers drying up as water being mined at unsustainable rates. Hillary has a solution: “Open borders!”
6. Hillary recognizes global warming is a huge problem and she’ll allow mass immigration of poor people from Third World countries to U.S., where their carbon footprints will be much larger. Lowers Third World carbon footprint!
7. She despises Catholics!
8. Hillary will not allow health savings accounts that have allowed Singapore to keep health care costs 50-70% below U.S. costs. Protecting health industry profiteering!
9. She has Muslim Brotherhood advisors! (And you thought Huma Abedin was the only one. Wrong!) Not Islamophobic!
10. Hillary will bring poor people from Third World to America, where they can damage the environment 15-150 times more than they did in their home country (per Paul Ehrlich). Bringing environmental degradation to a country that deserves it!
11. Believes in a woman’s right to choose to puncture the skull of an 8 1/2 month “fetus” and then suction out its brains!
12. Started war in Syria that’s left 500,000 dead. “Goddess of Chaos” and “Queen of War”!
13. Hillary wants mass immigration from places with high rates of diseases like extremely-drug-resistant tuberculosis, chagas, plague, scabies, swine flu, leprosy, rubella, measles, chicken pox. Why treat them there when we can treat them here?!
14. By knocking off Gadaffi she allowed terrorist jihadis to access ~15,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down civilian and military aircraft around the world! And according to my calculations if you fire them at the effluent water systems of certain older model nuclear reactors you can get a pressure wave that will blow out a valve resulting in a reactor meltdown with roughly 20,000 to 90,000 square miles of real estate taken out of commission!
15. Mass immigration Hillary favors will depress wages, increase income inequality, lower national IQ average, lower per capita productivity, increase debt and deficits. More equality between countries! Cheap labor and more Democrat votes!
16. America heading for ~75 million population increase by 2050. Hillary wants lots more! More people means more pollutants in our water, including endocrine-disrupting chemicals that feminize male sex organs. More equality between the sexes!
17. Hillary will oppose increased accreditation for online college degree programs that could massively decrease student debt. Protecting government’s role in higher education!
Saying that Hillary wants to start WWIII is as stupid as saying that Trump wants to start WWIII. Neither one of them wants to start a war with Russia or anyone else.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don’t understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond “we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business” (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the “greatness” of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?
The fact that it is also opposed to the self-righteousness of gay rights as pursued in the US is also going to be seen as healthy, even by those who don't actually share their views.
I don't think that Russia is anything for the US to be worried about, and I don't think that Russia has any reasonable reason to be going after either the Baltic states, or Poland (as currently constituted). These didn't become part of the Empire until the 1700's IIRC and always had some kind of special dispensations.
However, I am not surprised that Russia is going to be concerned over attempts to distance Ukraine (or perhaps some day Belarus) from the former Empire. The same applies to the Caucasus. In addition, the Russians have an issue with large numbers of Muslims on the Southern tier, and that must surely be a factor in how they conduct their foreign policy, including in Syria. For me, I am not "cheerleading" Russia but I understand the notion of spheres of influence, just as I understand the notion of the Monroe Doctrine. Or has that been repealed?
Once escalation begins, the scenarios of warfare become very unpredictable. World War I was started, in part, due to serious miscalculation and unexpected escalations.
That is my fear.
As for Russia, I see no reason to be enemies with them. Instead, I see common ground with them in fighting Islamicists and containing China. These are mutual interests where cooperation could benefit both sides.
I also have no problem going after them, but only over core interests of the United States. But only if it's absolutely necessary. If Putin was to invade Iraq or Saudi Arabia or try to blockade the Persian Gulf... But if he wants to bully old satellites or prop up an oil-less regime, I don't really see our interest in caring.
More importantly, Russia is not an existential threat to the United States or Western Civilization. Putin is a strongman, but he's rational and nobody is actually concerned he might start a nuclear war. Russia is a natural ally insomuch as she has she sees it in her best interest not to become part of the Caliphate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
There - clear enough for you?
As for Russophilia, you are begging the question. What if the "Russophiles" do not believe that Russia is expansionist? That Russia (aka "Putin") doesn't want to take back the Baltics? What if they think that Russia really wants to be left alone but it has no choice but to react to Western provocations in its backyard, its frontyard, and its living room?Replies: @biz
I don't understand why anyone on the alt-right disrespects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. These places clearly don't want to be ruled by Russia, and fought for decades or centuries not to be, and Putin clearly wants to expand Russia's hegemony over these places.
Here, I'll put it in alt-right terms: The Baltic countries are a major source of porn stars, escorts, and overseas brides, and Georgia and Armenia are probably the last traditionally conservative Christian countries in the World. Why do you wish them harm?Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @AP
I suspect this is really a version of the old trick that medieval kings used to play, in collecting taxes and dues for a war but actually spending the money on their court.
There are people in the imperial capital crazy enough to want war with Russia. We know this because these types of people were around in the 1950s and 1960s, Kennedy famously had a problem with them. By catering to their whims, the Clintons saw an opportunity for more “donations” to the Clinton Foundation and campaign, in the hopes that a Clinton restoration will provide the long hoped for World War III.
Again, I doubt the Clintons really intend this, but its a dangerous game they are playing.
Someday, America will be exceptional only in failure.Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Bryan
What constitutes “conquering Afghanistan?”
Making it less Afghanistani, I suppose. Alexander left the near-east considerably hellenized after his conquest. That influence persisted until the 7th century. He left little mark on Afghanistan and, if I remember correctly, withdrew his army from it, as being not worth the trouble. Just as Great Britain did in 1842, Russia did in 1989, and we will in............?Replies: @Diversity Heretic
Thanks for sharing. Very dank memes
Regardless of how you feel about her, if she does manage to pull it off, she would deserve credit, become a world-historical figure, and go down in the books as one of the greatest conquerors of all time, no?
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
You think these things make war less likely? You’re saying she’s just like Madeleine Halfwit, who rather famously screamed ‘What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?’ at Colin Powell. Who rather famously almost caused a shooting war with Russia during her demented intervention in Serbia. Recall also Hillary’s televised Satanic cackling at Khaddafy’s death by bayonet sodomy.
She is seriously dangerous. Whether she is more or less dangerous than that bizarre lunatic McCain is an interesting question. But the fact that you have to reach that far to find someone arguably more dangerous is itself indicative of how bad she is.
You've come a long way baby......Replies: @Zach, @Venator
Odd that no one links the raping refugees to the Soviet rapers who in 1945 went on a spree in defeated Germany. In Berlin, German males were forced to watch as Soviet soldiers had their way with mothers, sisters, and daughters–all encouraged by Uncle Joe Stalin. Supposedly a statue in east Berlin honoring the conquering Soviets was known by the local women as a memorial to the unknown rapist. Merkel doesn’t seem to remember any of that.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
Come on, Hillary more or less initiated US involvement in Libya and she supported the Syrian rebels in 2012. There’s no indication she was ever a dove or reluctant to use force the way that, say, Joe Biden was.
Hillary doesn’t see military service as an honorable calling because she sees soldiers as tools.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
I personally don’t wish Russia takes back the Baltics or anything West of its 1930 borders.
There's been a running joke in Hungary that we joined the Central Powers and they lost the First World War, then we joined the Axis and they lost the Second World War, then we joined the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact and they lost the Cold War, now we just joined NATO and the EU, they are probably going to lose in a bad way soon...Replies: @Latvian woman
And I can't possibly google everything that looks interesting. That's the way wiki walks start, and that is a very bad thing. And the possibility exists that walk will take you to TVTropes, and well... that's a whole day gone there practically.
On another note, concerning this "book of war." Here and there I've seen other references to this. I realize it's not like a compiled thing circulated to military leaders on photocopied pages worldwide.
But in the past I've seen stuff referenced as being from the book that basically said stuff like:
1) Never willingly assault an enemy position with less than 3 to 1 odds in your favor.
2) If the enemy is dug in on a hill, then you want 6 to 1.
3) You need ? occupying troops for every 100 people in an occupied area; depending on circumstances this could be higher. (Forget the number but it is pretty high, something like 3 or 4 - which makes a whole lot of what the US has been trying to do since WWII "against the book."
Does anyone know where there is a sort of collection of these rules of thumb somewhere?
As regards the things like assaulting positions, my take always was that it is pretty universal that you have a bond with the people you fight with. Even if you could take something with less than 3 to 1 odds, you want to go in with overwhelming force so you win with low fatalities to your side, as opposed to a pyrrhic victory. And the "odds" are a diminishing returns kind of thing.Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @flyingtiger
Other aphorisms from the “book of war”:
1) An army travels on its stomach.
2) In war, morale is to materiel as 3 is to 1.
–attributed to Napoleon
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
Your anti-Russian attitude would have made you a good John Birch cold warrior in the 1950s, Duckie.
Actually, I think what got Byng the death penalty was being assigned a mission for which he was undermanned and under-equipped, then declining to squander his troops’ lives in a useless gesture.
Politicians hate it when you do that. It embarrasses them by demonstrating how bad they are at preparing for combat.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
I would expect that some admiration for Putin-led Russia has to do with the “strong man” posture that Putin sets forth (somewhat similar to Reagan chopping wood), its unabashed patriotism, Orthodoxy, veneration of the Tsar, stuff like that. As an American, I have to confess some admiration for a country that actually promotes love of country. We certainly don’t.
The fact that it is also opposed to the self-righteousness of gay rights as pursued in the US is also going to be seen as healthy, even by those who don’t actually share their views.
I don’t think that Russia is anything for the US to be worried about, and I don’t think that Russia has any reasonable reason to be going after either the Baltic states, or Poland (as currently constituted). These didn’t become part of the Empire until the 1700’s IIRC and always had some kind of special dispensations.
However, I am not surprised that Russia is going to be concerned over attempts to distance Ukraine (or perhaps some day Belarus) from the former Empire. The same applies to the Caucasus. In addition, the Russians have an issue with large numbers of Muslims on the Southern tier, and that must surely be a factor in how they conduct their foreign policy, including in Syria. For me, I am not “cheerleading” Russia but I understand the notion of spheres of influence, just as I understand the notion of the Monroe Doctrine. Or has that been repealed?
Buzzfeed thought it was real and posted approvingly.
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
Hillary was the one who pushed for killing Bin Laden when Obama chickened out. She was the one who pushed to overthrow Kaddafi (or whichever version of his name you prefer). She backed the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and she’s backing Obama’s war to overthrow Assad. Hillary is a cold fish at heart who doesn’t hesitate to knock off foreign leaders for ideological reasons.
Remember, she’s had the personal protection of the Secret Service and the US government since 1992. That’s a long time to get used to being protected, and her attitude towards getting her own skin into trouble is utter complacency. She knows she’s not going to be assassinated by anyone in retaliation because they can’t get through to her.
Why didn’t Germany defeat the Soviet Union in 1942 or 1943, if it was so easy for them?
Do you mean to say “ubi vitrum faciunt, pacem appellant“? (Did I decline the word for “glass” correctly?)
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
I hear this triple bank shot reasoning all the time from the same people who screamed no blood for oil and then turn around and say this is all kabuki.
No, its not. One look at her history says otherwise.
Field Marshal MontgomeryReplies: @Sean, @Connecticut Famer, @szopen, @yowza
Well, we did marched on Moscow, we took Moscow, and even though we eventually were expelled, we won the war.
Hillary’s Putin and Russia bashing and hacking accusations are partly an attempt to divert the attention and partly “Clintonian triangulation” aimed at the basket of deplorables, dumb red necks who attend the foot ball games and get angry if some one doesn’t stand up and bang his chest “America fuck yeah”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_MexicoHillary Will Prove That a Woman Can Do What The Napoleons and Hitler Failed At:Probably a bunch of also ran invasions of Russia by countries like Sweden and Poland by their respective tyrants too.Replies: @szopen
Actually, our first invasion of Russia was by bunch of magnates who were convinced by delusional boy he is a true heir to Russian throne. Then there was also invasion by state forces, by one has to be realy ignorant of our history to call our almost powerless king “tyrant”.
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
So, has a “true warmonger,” in your opinion, ever been a viable candidate for POTUS? I can think of none more so than Mrs. Clinton.
Believe what you wish. But please consider abstention this time.
You've come a long way baby......Replies: @Zach, @Venator
Make that outside wartime and military occupation, and it’s really hard to think of someone. OTOH, it is an occupation.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
It is Putinphilia, really. The alt right has no love for Yeltsin.
Memo to Hillary: Bring tanks. Lots of them.
“Conquering Russia is well within US capabilities.’
Great, I cannot wait. Let’s all vote for Hillary.
I don’t get it at all. In the past there was usually some minimally convincing bullshit reason for declaring someone The Enemy (they have weapons of mass destruction, we have to protect Poland for some reason), which was forgotten as the war went on and then there was just war because there was war.
Now there doesn’t even seem to be that. Has any politician at any time told us why Russia is our enemy now? I seems like it was just announced at some point and people went along with it because Putin doesn’t like gay people.
It cant be the crimea because that referendum was pretty definite and it can’t be Ukraine because…why do we care about the Ukraine again?
http://scimaps.org/mapdetail/napoleons_march_to_m_9
This is a very famous graph; I suppose what Napoleon said was true, but there is also a non-zero chance that every atom in your body could suddenly decide it’s momentum vector was in a trajectory towards Alpha Centauri.
You might have to wait for the life span of a 100 universes say, but at least the chance is not zero.
Someday, America will be exceptional only in failure.Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Bryan
Actually, Alexander the Great was the one who did actually conquer Afghanistan. The only one to date.
There’s been a lot of alt-right memery making similar points under the hashtag #draftourdaughters
https://twitter.com/MissLizzyNJ/status/791844705264922624
https://twitter.com/MakeAusGr8Again/status/791855414317023232
If butch American women are so keen to fight for women's rights, why don't they focus their anger on Saudi Arabia and co.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
“I don’t think that Russia is anything for the US to be worried about, and I don’t think that Russia has any reasonable reason to be going after either the Baltic states, or Poland (as currently constituted). These didn’t become part of the Empire until the 1700′s IIRC and always had some kind of special dispensations. ”
To go along with that, I’d sure like for someone to mechanically explain how Iran is a threat to the US or Israel.
Are they going to mount an amphibious invasion of the eastern US seaboard? Give the endless legions of Hezbollah (haven’t heard much from them since the Israeli/Lebanon dustup about ten years ago) the “activate” order?
Same thing for Russia. They still have hordes of commie legions poised to swarm across the Fulda Gap? How is it supposed to work?
My take is the real threat is more abstract, even existentialist. Forming alternate trade and financial organizations that make the US irrelevant. And for something like that I can’t see how what we are doing or even talking about doing is effective.
There’s absolutely no way we (or Israel) could mount an effective military assault on Iran say. Sure we could do bombing or shoot missiles at them. But that isn’t going to do a whole lot.
I guess you could also interdict things like oil being shipped from Iran (though isn’t there a pipeline from them going to Russia now?). But tankers are owned by the international crew, plus the oil itself is bought by people that would be mad about the whole thing. Plus I guess that transport corridor the Chinese are building to Europe can have a side route to Iran.
To me it seems like a bunch of monkeys in a tree slinging poo, not some prelude to World War III.
Unless acting irrational to invoke fear and uncertainty in others is part of your rational strategy.
satan bomb says no way!
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
Because he’s the only politician with a white skin who seems to be acting unambiguously for the benefit of his own country.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
It might not be “none of our business” what Russia does in Ukraine, Syria or the Baltics, but it’s certainly not worth risking war over. And Russia can be of assistance to us in overthrowing our hostile elite. Clinton and May and Trudeau and Soros and Merkel all pose a much greater threat to the West than Putin does.
Stupid OT story from “When they go low we go high land”
Manhattan resident leaves note on neighbor’s door telling him to keep it down or he’ll call the cops.
#YourVeryBlackNeighbor responds by filing complaints with the NYCLU, ACLU, and NYPD because his gentrifying white neighbor is committing violence against his black body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/
I’ll leave a copy of the “viral letter” here:
Amen. Hillary desperately wants another debacle of a Middle East war, but this time against a nuclear power. But Trump is the dangerous madman for wanting no part of this. As you said, imagine what the MSM would say if Trump or any other Republican candidate talked like Hillary does.
The bias of the MSM has always been there but now it’s so extreme as to be absurd. Trump criticized Hillary on gun control by saying something along the lines of I’d like to see her give up her armed security. Pro-gun people have criticized the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians and celebrities in this way countless times. The MSM pretends to believe that Trump was calling for Hillary’s assassination. I say pretends because it is impossible that they are stupid enough to misunderstand Trump in this way. This was a completely manufactured controversy based on a lie.
On the other hand, a Democrat/Hillary campaign operative admits on camera that they use and incite violence and very little is heard except on Drudge, Breitbart, etc. What would the reaction have been if a tape emerged of someone affiliated with Trump saying the same thing?
Kaine says Clinton would seek updated war-making powers
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kaine-says-clinton-would-seek-updated-war-making-powers-153907605.html
Like when Sarah Palin seemed willing to go to war with Russia, because of the crisis with Georgia. Today Trump is accused of not wanting to defend Europe from a implausible russian attack.
Politicians hate it when you do that. It embarrasses them by demonstrating how bad they are at preparing for combat.Replies: @republic
Re: Admiral Byng and the famous quotation by Voltaire: “in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others.”
Maybe she will not have the chance.
F.B.I. Reviewing New Emails in Hillary Clinton Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
I would presume she does not want to start WWIII as well. However, she seems intent on confronting Russia over its core interests with little benefit to US security. She also seems likely to put US troops into positions where escalation and conflict is extremely likely. These kinds of things can push us, unintentionally, into a serious war with Russia.
Once escalation begins, the scenarios of warfare become very unpredictable. World War I was started, in part, due to serious miscalculation and unexpected escalations.
That is my fear.
As for Russia, I see no reason to be enemies with them. Instead, I see common ground with them in fighting Islamicists and containing China. These are mutual interests where cooperation could benefit both sides.
I also have no problem going after them, but only over core interests of the United States. But only if it’s absolutely necessary. If Putin was to invade Iraq or Saudi Arabia or try to blockade the Persian Gulf… But if he wants to bully old satellites or prop up an oil-less regime, I don’t really see our interest in caring.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
Many Russians, Putin included, after the fall of Communism returned to their ancestral faith, making the country once again part of the Christian world. That is something worth celebrating.
If it comes to that, you can’t say we didn’t deserve it. What bunch of retards can’t cover Free Space in a bingo game.
Hillary is unlikely to conquer Russia; But Trump has done masterful job. He has slayed the dragon. The future will not be boring.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-gop-civil-war-republicans-rnc-future-214396
I guess wikileaks forced the FBI into trying to look like they’re not totally corrupt. They’re looking back into the Clinton emails: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews
WaPo wants to make sure we proles understand that if Hillary goes down and the Trumpenfuhrer takes power it’ll be bad for the economy:
Bill Kristol is ready to fight:
The older conservatism: We’ll proudly fight for our country if need be.
The alt-right: We’re scaredy-cats and proud of it.
Israel has a pressing interest, imagine an Israeli jet can’t take off without being tagged by a Russian anti aircraft system.
We should at least finish losing in Afghanistan before we start losing in Russia.
Whew, all these internet Napoleons who’ve played video war games and fantasize themselves to be great conquerers. There’s millions of these Walter Mitty types out there in internet-Disneyland.
Maybe the power of a healthy example as opposed to promotion of decadence. That’s hard to understand for many internet warriors who want other people’s children to fight da Rooskies
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
“The whole world hates Russia”
I think you forgot about China.
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
As SPMoore8 mentioned, it’s refreshing to see a European leader who doesn’t hold his own ethnicity in contempt.
More importantly, Russia is not an existential threat to the United States or Western Civilization. Putin is a strongman, but he’s rational and nobody is actually concerned he might start a nuclear war. Russia is a natural ally insomuch as she has she sees it in her best interest not to become part of the Caliphate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Like a bad riddle.
“How many Secret Service agents would it take to hold Hillary up while she tries to conquer the Russian steppes?”
As long as Hillary is able to hold her arms up in a gesture of defiance, U.S. forces will drive back the Russian Army whereas when she let's her arms down, the Russians turn the tide of battle.
So they will get Huma to hold up her right hand and Cheryl Mills to prop up her left, and the 2nd Armor Division shall overwhelm Putin and his people by the shards of the autonomously guided sub-munitions rained down on their heads by the MRLS.
A shooting war is a dollar auction type situation, where both parties think the other must be crazy for raising the stakes even further, while both are failing to realize that they are doing the same.
The Russians think it would be crazy of the Americans to attack Syria (and especially the Russian troops there), when they have already told them that that would mean nuclear war. But maybe the Americans will attack nevertheless, perhaps because they think the Russians would be crazy to start a nuclear war over such a little thing as the destruction of their expeditionary force.
But now the Russians might retaliate by sinking a US carrier. If they can’t do it with conventional weapons, they might do that with a tactical nuke. Or they might attack Estonia. They might be thinking the Americans can’t be so crazy to start a full nuclear exchange in response to the sinking of a ship, or the loss of Estonia, or the use of a tactical nuke.
But the Americans will obviously not want to leave this conflict humiliated (especially if they started it themselves, because a president cannot let him/herself to be seen that stupid to start a conflict and then leave with a loss when on paper the US is the stronger party), so they will retaliate, too.
Because the US is stronger, it will very quickly deteriorate to a point where the Russians feel compelled to use tactical nukes. And so they will.
Once the Russians use nukes (if the Americans do that, the logic will be the same on the Russians’ side, I’m just assuming it will be the Russians because they are weaker in conventional forces), then there will be another factor: the American leadership might feel that now a full escalation is inevitable. Moreover, the point about the leadership’s loss of face might become even stronger – (s)he started a (partial) nuclear war, literally for nothing?
So, either to avoid loss of face (people are very stupid, especially under stress), or out of fear that the Russians are just about to launch their missiles, or out of a vague feeling that there’s no longer a way back, they’d launch all the missiles. It could be preceded by a few more steps of back-and-forth tactical or intermediate nuke escalation, it doesn’t matter much.
The crucial thing is, once you set war into motion, things won’t turn out as expected, because there is a chance your opponent won’t be such good sports to give you victory and then politely congratulate you. Especially not if he is a nuclear superpower.
This conflict is either not started or it’s likely going to be a nuclear war. Don’t count on human sanity to stop it, once it’s in motion, because if human sanity couldn’t prevent it in peacetime while it was all cool and peaceful, it certainly won’t stop it under stressful conditions while a war is going on, and surprisingly the enemy is shooting back where he isn’t supposed to be according to the plan.
And she’ll do it with women and transgendered special forces!
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
I want Russia to restore the Czar, declare Orthodoxy the state religion, and conquer the decadent West, starting with the USA.
There – clear enough for you?
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
Right, Hillary won’t start WWIII. She not nearly idealistic enough for that. Talking trash about Russia had long been a cheap and easy way for a Presidential candidate to look tough in the eyes of the voters. But once Hillary wins the elections (God forbid!) this talk will be switched off.
As for Russophilia, you are begging the question. What if the “Russophiles” do not believe that Russia is expansionist? That Russia (aka “Putin”) doesn’t want to take back the Baltics? What if they think that Russia really wants to be left alone but it has no choice but to react to Western provocations in its backyard, its frontyard, and its living room?
Weiner’s weiner may have saved us from war with Russia.
Slightly OT: It looks like the FBI has announced, today, Friday, 10/28, ten days before the election, that they are once more investigating Hillary’s emails.
This can only be good for Trump, and bad for Hillary.
Not sure if it means anything, but there it is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews
Why did Comey have a change of heart now? What does he know that we don't? It must be very bad & incriminate him possibly.Replies: @SPMoore8
One aspect of the alt-right that I don't understand at all is the Russophilia. It seems to me that this goes well beyond "we have our own big problems and what Russia does in its own backyard is none of our business" (which is stupid enough in and of itself) to almost wishing that Putin would take back the Baltics, etc. and restore the "greatness" of Russia. What is in this for Americans? How does Russian expansionism (even into its former sphere of influence) help America so that we should be cheerleading it?Replies: @Bill, @reiner Tor, @SPMoore8, @Thea, @kihowi, @Anon, @Yak-15, @Old fogey, @ATX Hipster, @neon2, @inertial, @biz
I agree with this comment 100%.
I don’t understand why anyone on the alt-right disrespects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. These places clearly don’t want to be ruled by Russia, and fought for decades or centuries not to be, and Putin clearly wants to expand Russia’s hegemony over these places.
Here, I’ll put it in alt-right terms: The Baltic countries are a major source of porn stars, escorts, and overseas brides, and Georgia and Armenia are probably the last traditionally conservative Christian countries in the World. Why do you wish them harm?
* that may be because I don't know enough about them.Replies: @Latvian woman
Stats:HIV rate , Russia (2011): 1.1%
HIV rate, Ukraine (2012): .9%
HIV rate, USA (2011): .6%
HIV rate, Germany (2011): .1%
HIV rate, Poland (2011): .1%Abortion rate, Russia (2013): 534
Abortion rate, Ukraine (2013): 293.3
Abortion rate, USA (2013): 252.7
Abortion rate, Germany (2013): 150.7
Abortion rate, Poland (2013): 2.61 (this is not a typo)Homicide rate, Russia: 9.2
Homicide rate, USA: 4.7
Homicide rate, Ukraine 4.3
Homicide rate, France: 1.0
Homicide rate, Germany: .8
Homicide rate, Poland: .8% who never attend religious services (2008)Russia 30%-40%
Germany 30% – 40%
Ukraine 10% – 20%
Poland under 10%Percentage marriages ending in divorce (2011):USA: 53%
Russia: 51%
Germany: 49%
Ukraine: 42%
Poland: 27%Note that Ukraine's stats vary widely from west to east, with eastern Ukraine being even worse than Russia while western Ukraine is a lot like Poland.Replies: @fnn, @biz
Field Marshal MontgomeryReplies: @Sean, @Connecticut Famer, @szopen, @yowza
Irrelevant, since China or the Russkies can land a nuke on Los Angeles within a few minutes of launch. Russian subs have been seen hanging around the coast of Catalina, presumably waving to Obama, months ago. The biggest nuke, detonated a mile over Los Angeles can clean house like you cannot imagine.
You might as well be quoting Genghis Kahn on rules for shooting arrows from a pony, old man. War games aren’t chess anymore. It’s poker, and you better bet right.
...as Tool put it, "see you in Arizona Bay."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xic5LfFNVc
This can only be good for Trump, and bad for Hillary.
Not sure if it means anything, but there it is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnewsReplies: @Thea, @yowza
On a related note,the WSJ brings up the fact that no emails from or to Clinton herself have been released. Could some one be saving those for leverage after the election?
Why did Comey have a change of heart now? What does he know that we don’t? It must be very bad & incriminate him possibly.
Russia in Balkans is a bad memory for all. Only Marshall Tito was a success in independent third way to survive. Death of Tito is like death of Saddam Hussein and death of Muammar Khadaffi with much chaos.
Reagan wanted Russia to be part of the Western Alliance. Trump has similar instincts and he would like to end the New Cold War and work with Russia to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS. Trump would de-escalate the NATO advance towards the Russian border.
Regarding Syria and Libya, when Hillary was Secretary of State the U.S. and its allies directly and indirectly supported Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) as well as terrorist jihadis sympathetic to Al Qaeda—the same group that toppled the Twin Towers in New York City. The U.S. also supported salafi jihadis and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Libya.
Back on 9/11/2001 who would have thought that 15 years later a strong majority of American women would vote for a presidential candidate who helped arm Al Qaeda and terrorist jihadis sympathetic to Al Qaeda and who would likely do so again as president?
Hillary wants to establish NATO-enforced no-fly zones in Syria. That’s a policy that originated with Brookings in 2012, and its really more about establishing a no-fly zone for terrorist jihadis than for protecting Syrians displaced by the war. Brookings is run by Hillary’s friend Strobe Talbott and it has a branch office in Qatar, a country that wants to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Turkey, which Assad opposes. If the U.S. establishes a no-fly zone in Syria there is a real possibility of war with Russia.
Trump has talked about creating Syrian safe-havens but if he’s elected president I think he’d be talked out of it.
If anyone wanted to fight Russia intelligently, they’d probably try to find a way to tempt the Russians out of their fastnesses on the steppe. That’s assuming – which may be wildly wrong – that a ground war would make any sense.
This can only be good for Trump, and bad for Hillary.
Not sure if it means anything, but there it is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnewsReplies: @Thea, @yowza
"How many Secret Service agents would it take to hold Hillary up while she tries to conquer the Russian steppes?"Replies: @Inquiring Mind
It will be like Moses in the Bible.
As long as Hillary is able to hold her arms up in a gesture of defiance, U.S. forces will drive back the Russian Army whereas when she let’s her arms down, the Russians turn the tide of battle.
So they will get Huma to hold up her right hand and Cheryl Mills to prop up her left, and the 2nd Armor Division shall overwhelm Putin and his people by the shards of the autonomously guided sub-munitions rained down on their heads by the MRLS.
Why did Comey have a change of heart now? What does he know that we don't? It must be very bad & incriminate him possibly.Replies: @SPMoore8
I really have no idea what is going on here. What I do know, is for the FBI to announce by letter that they are reviewing materials that may cause a re-opening of their investigation into a presidential candidate 11 days before the election is pretty disturbing. At minimum, it will cast a shadow on HRC that will be hard to dispel. So — why is the FBI doing this?
Isn’t that why Russia has nukes? To make sure that invaders won’t win?
Putin laughing:
Apparently they just found thousands of Hillary emails with state secrets on one or more of Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner’s devices, which were investigated because of his latest sexting scandal involving a minor.
October Surprise.
“why is the FBI doing this?” Dunno. Maybe some of the troops told the boss “Either you do this or we leak it anyway, plus various things we have on you.”
Or maybe the FBI’s polls say that Trump is the likelier to win, and so they want to curry favour with him.
Maybe the “intelligence community” has decided they don’t like the idea of Hillary as their new boss. Let’s face it, she’s insane and dangerous.
Only nukes would be required if that was believed. Nukes on both sides are a deterrent to nuclear war. Nukes make a difference to conventional war no question and Russia has vast numbers of tactical nukes for defence against China. On the other hand there were a lot of tactical, medium and strategic nukes both sides of the iron Curtain and yet both sides spent vast sums on relatively expensive conventional weapons that obviously existed because a conventional-only war was thought a real possibility.
Going nuclear with even a single tactical nuke on the battlefield would be final and escalate to destroy a country more completely and irreversibly than any occupation. Faced with the prospect of destroying their country or accepting occupation, I think it is at least conceivable that a leader losing a conventional war would say “No first use of nukes, we shall fight it out as best we can and if necessary accept a defeat and occupation with the possibility of future resurgence as an independent nation state”.
Nukes are also a deterrent to war-war. Unless I missed the Great Russo-American War of 1955.Replies: @Sean
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
Wency:
Every statement made in your defense of Hillary is utterly and unequivocally wrong. One of the many instances of her evil incompetence is her diabolical role in the destruction of Libya and her cacklingly evil gloat regarding the torture and death of Gaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”
They were not fighting only the Russians by 1942. All that stuff about the Russians winning the war single handed is crap.
Manhattan resident leaves note on neighbor's door telling him to keep it down or he'll call the cops.
#YourVeryBlackNeighbor responds by filing complaints with the NYCLU, ACLU, and NYPD because his gentrifying white neighbor is committing violence against his black body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/
I'll leave a copy of the "viral letter" here:Replies: @grapesoda, @Daniel Williams, @guest, @guest
He’s right. Threatening to call the cops is a bitch move. That should only be used as a last resort.
Hillary doesn't see military service as an honorable calling because she sees soldiers as tools.Replies: @Dan Hayes
Joe Biden reluctant to use force. Ya gotta be kidding! Witness his ill-advised role in the continuing destabilization of Ukraine where he serves as the eminence grise of America’s shot-sighted policy.
Yeah, that’s a real possibility, that a leader of a nuclear superpower would accept defeat in a conventional war and sportingly congratulate the winners.
Or he’d just use tactical nukes.
You do understand that Soviet planners thought their conventional armored columns would move during a nuclear war? They didn’t much develop tactics for fighting within cities, because the assumption was bigger cities would be nuked anyway.
The idea behind keeping vast stockpiles of conventional weapons was that the industry would be destroyed anyway, so there’d be no way to produce additional weapons during the war, unlike in the first two world wars.
The Soviets thought that since the USSR wasn’t yet as urbanized as the US or Western Europe, it would only lose half of its population in the first nuclear strike, whereas the US would lose two thirds and Western Europe possibly even more.
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
LBJ was “pressured” into war? He was only the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of all of its military forces. It’s not like he could have stood up to those warmonger bullies and done whatever the hell he wanted.
If Hillary gets us into a nuclear war with Russia, I’ll feel so much better knowing that her heart wasn’t really in it.
"I'll out red-bash the Republicans, and it'll be LBJs in the White House for all of eternity!"
Great, I cannot wait. Let's all vote for Hillary.Replies: @antipater_1
Exactly! Then we will force those vile Ruskies to stop eating Borsch and eat Campbell’s Chunky instead.
I don't understand why anyone on the alt-right disrespects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. These places clearly don't want to be ruled by Russia, and fought for decades or centuries not to be, and Putin clearly wants to expand Russia's hegemony over these places.
Here, I'll put it in alt-right terms: The Baltic countries are a major source of porn stars, escorts, and overseas brides, and Georgia and Armenia are probably the last traditionally conservative Christian countries in the World. Why do you wish them harm?Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @AP
“I don’t understand why anyone on the alt-right disrespects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia.”
No one disrespects them*, any more than I disrespect Burkina Faso or Singapore. But I don’t think any of them are vital strategic interests of the US or UK, and I certainly don’t think British troops should be stationed in any of them. None of that means that I want Russia to take them over.
Armenia is IIRC pretty well disposed to Russia and vice-versa. With the Armenians history they look to their larger mainly-Christian neighbour.
* that may be because I don’t know enough about them.
Dunno. I tend to think that the Russians would launch all the nukes in that scenario.Ditto for the USA.
Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons, but they can easily destroy conventional armies, and your claim that planning was for tank warfare that might be taking place after nuclear weapons had been only used to devastate cities across the continent is absurd. Both sides had a lot of tanks, because they thought tanks were a way to defend their country and keep in in one piece.
The Davy Crockett “tactical nuclear recoilless rifle with a 0.01-kiloton payload was designed for use on conventional battlefields”.
It was retired in 1967 and not replaced.
Kissinger was brought in to educate Reagan on nuclear war and he advised Reagan to never use nukes unless the other side did first. The US would have no motive to use nukes because they would win a conventional world war. The hotting up of the Cold War was largely because of Eisenhower and then Kennedy proposing that Germany get some control over NATO nukes. Russians leadership, especially Nikita Khrushchev, were terrified of the Germans getting a finger on NATO nukes and that was because they thought there might be a conventional attack in which the Germans would conquer Russia under a nuclear Mexican standoff.
No, nukes cannot easily destroy armies, they can only easily destroy cities and other large, hard targets. You might be aware that inside a battle tank or APC you can survive a thermonuclear explosion from a few kilometers (with a bit of luck), and there are not enough nukes to cover the entire battlefield or even most of it. You might get cancer later on (like everybody else), but that doesn't affect your ability to fight for a few more months or weeks. (Soviet planners thought after a few weeks both sides would run out of ammo, so they'd have to reach the Rhein or maybe the Atlantic within that timeframe.)Replies: @Sean
Even East of their 1930 borders, I wouldn’t want them to just swallow Ukraine, or anything other than the Crimea. Though it’s obvious that the Donbas people don’t want to live under Ukrainian rule, I don’t really think Ukraine should be maimed further. On the other hand, I think it would be good if Ukraine didn’t join NATO. It’d be actually good for Ukraine, too. I think Eastern Central European countries would be better off if they didn’t join NATO or the EU. I do regret having voted for both 15-20 years ago.
There’s been a running joke in Hungary that we joined the Central Powers and they lost the First World War, then we joined the Axis and they lost the Second World War, then we joined the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact and they lost the Cold War, now we just joined NATO and the EU, they are probably going to lose in a bad way soon…
You might as well be quoting Genghis Kahn on rules for shooting arrows from a pony, old man. War games aren't chess anymore. It's poker, and you better bet right.Replies: @Dr. X
Maybe (with apologies to Steve) that’s not such a bad idea??? (Steve, build a bunker first.)
…as Tool put it, “see you in Arizona Bay.”
I actually talked to a Hungarian (ret.) general about this, but it’s basically public knowledge.
No, nukes cannot easily destroy armies, they can only easily destroy cities and other large, hard targets. You might be aware that inside a battle tank or APC you can survive a thermonuclear explosion from a few kilometers (with a bit of luck), and there are not enough nukes to cover the entire battlefield or even most of it. You might get cancer later on (like everybody else), but that doesn’t affect your ability to fight for a few more months or weeks. (Soviet planners thought after a few weeks both sides would run out of ammo, so they’d have to reach the Rhein or maybe the Atlantic within that timeframe.)
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
I doubt the 1/8th of the world’s land mass that is Russia hates Russia.
It’s true. Look how well the previous ones accomplished this.
Wait a minute. Tiny’s a Reaganite?
Color me unsurprised.
Manhattan resident leaves note on neighbor's door telling him to keep it down or he'll call the cops.
#YourVeryBlackNeighbor responds by filing complaints with the NYCLU, ACLU, and NYPD because his gentrifying white neighbor is committing violence against his black body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/
I'll leave a copy of the "viral letter" here:Replies: @grapesoda, @Daniel Williams, @guest, @guest
Can you imagine having to read memos at work from this imbecile?
The problem is this – what benefits his country harms other countries and Russians (including Putin) don’t really give a damn about the latter part – they view the world as a zero sum game because they are not big value creators, just resource extractors. Mostly the countries that he would harm in order to benefit Russia are those on his borders but they do not exclude the US. If an American Putin existed, I could see the attraction but what we have is a Russian Putin who really really doesn’t have your best interests at heart.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-propagandists-seize-on-ferguson-race-riots-1.1906546Replies: @Latvian woman
Yes, if you can win a conventional war, no need to use them first. We are talking about the other side using tactical and operational nukes to avert conventional defeat.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/792004105841414145
The older conservatism: We'll proudly fight for our country if need be.
The alt-right: We're scaredy-cats and proud of it.Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Jasper Been
Bill Kristol is very proud of his belief that other people should be proud to fight for their country.
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
Could this be the Id of Jamie Kirchick…. hmmm
No, nukes cannot easily destroy armies, they can only easily destroy cities and other large, hard targets. You might be aware that inside a battle tank or APC you can survive a thermonuclear explosion from a few kilometers (with a bit of luck), and there are not enough nukes to cover the entire battlefield or even most of it. You might get cancer later on (like everybody else), but that doesn't affect your ability to fight for a few more months or weeks. (Soviet planners thought after a few weeks both sides would run out of ammo, so they'd have to reach the Rhein or maybe the Atlantic within that timeframe.)Replies: @Sean
He may have been thinking of the Neutron bomb. Tanks require a lot of logistical support and tank divisions would be easy to disrupt by nuclear destruction of their extremely vulnerable supply train. Although tanks themselves can survive at a surprisingly close distance from nuclear explosion, that presumes the tanks had the space to avoid being all bunched up. However tanks attacking against nuclear weapons would be have faced nuclear cratering funneling them into tight concentrations and while densely packed in a virtual armored traffic jam they’d easily be destroyed with a small number of nukes .
No. We should hope for more. Freeing up all that lebensraum will create space to solve Steve’s “most important graph in the world.”
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/792004105841414145
The older conservatism: We'll proudly fight for our country if need be.
The alt-right: We're scaredy-cats and proud of it.Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Jasper Been
I’m pretty sure that “old conservative” would fight for his country: Israel.
https://twitter.com/mrgordberg/status/791793164164091906https://twitter.com/MissLizzyNJ/status/791844705264922624https://twitter.com/MakeAusGr8Again/status/791855414317023232Replies: @unpc downunder
Russia is actually pretty progressive in terms of rights for masculine women. Masculine women in Russia have long been encouraged to be engineers, scientists and athletes, and the Soviet Union was the only country in WWII to allow women in combat roles. Slavic countries (in their own idiosyncratic way) are also pretty liberal on lesbian relationships and female to male transsexualism.
If butch American women are so keen to fight for women’s rights, why don’t they focus their anger on Saudi Arabia and co.
* that may be because I don't know enough about them.Replies: @Latvian woman
As a Brit, how do you then feel about US Marines being stationed in Norway?
Russia could have conquered Europe, and nuclear weapons would not have been used to stop them, but it would have meant a global war fought against the US, the world’s most powerful economy, which is a war Russia could only expect to lose. Reagan was advised not to use nuclear weapons because they would win any conventional war. America is obviously immune from the quandary that would face Russia if a nuclear armed opponent defeated them in conventional war.
What I don’t get about this American alt-right, is that they are such vivid supporters of the 2nd Amendment – the right to bear arms – and the right to defend one’s homeland, family and property (and life), and yet when others attempt just that, somehow they don’t have that right. How would you feel if someone threatened to take the fruits of your labor? Would you not want to have guns? If you don’t care about the Baltics, fine (we won’t care about your interests either), but you have no right to criticize the Balts for being vigilant. Nobody wants to live under the Russian system. If you want to – go ahead but don’t tell others they should just lay down and take it.
And all these American admirers of the tsars here… please. How many of you know what real tyranny even means? Do you want to live under a real tsar (or even a semi-tsar like Putin)? Do you know what it means to be persecuted by the tsar’s secret service? Why do you assume that you will be favored by the tyrants and not be their victim? Most of you would be.
–
No, and neither do you.
The last few Tsars weren't so bad, especially compared to the communists. Putin can't really be compared to a Tsar. He was a KGB man, trained and steeped in the communist system. He has the soul of a secret-policeman, and the outlook of a soviet bureaucrat.
I don't blame you for mistrusting and disliking Putin. I don't like or trust him either. But don't expect that we would want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And I sure as hell don't want to go to war with Russia over Syria.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
Kristol’s son served as an infantry officer in the US Marines.
Giving Kristol's son the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's an honorable guy and an asset to the nation - so what? Bill Kristol was a military age male at a time when Uncle Sam was desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel. He thought Harvard was more important than Vietnam. That's fine, I guess, but it takes some nerve to sit out a pointless quagmire and then decades later chastise others for wanting to do the same.Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
As for Russophilia, you are begging the question. What if the "Russophiles" do not believe that Russia is expansionist? That Russia (aka "Putin") doesn't want to take back the Baltics? What if they think that Russia really wants to be left alone but it has no choice but to react to Western provocations in its backyard, its frontyard, and its living room?Replies: @biz
Then they would be incorrect.
There's been a running joke in Hungary that we joined the Central Powers and they lost the First World War, then we joined the Axis and they lost the Second World War, then we joined the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact and they lost the Cold War, now we just joined NATO and the EU, they are probably going to lose in a bad way soon...Replies: @Latvian woman
Re: Ukraine, I agree that a NATO road map would not be the best idea (nor is it that realistic). Ideally, Ukraine should have some sort of a regional defense guarantee. It might sound naive given the current circumstances but something along the lines of Intermarium would be great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
That worked out very well for Ukraine.Replies: @Latvian woman
If butch American women are so keen to fight for women's rights, why don't they focus their anger on Saudi Arabia and co.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
That’s right, a Russian woman flew into space way before American women could have jobs in the foreign service.
With due respect to your generally sensible positions on things – a majority of alt-righters don’t necessarily assume that those with deep, historical grievances against Russians (or others) originating in the shtetls of their ancestors, always have their best interests at heart, either.
If butch American women are so keen to fight for women's rights, why don't they focus their anger on Saudi Arabia and co.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
I’m not sure “allow” is the right word here.. it should be more like “were compelled to” or “were forced to”, or “strongly encouraged”. Or “had no choice” (this one I actually support – if there’s no other choice, it is ok even for a woman to give her life). I’m not sure you fully understand what the Soviet Union really was. One had to be…. er, “useful”. If one wasn’t, they made them.
Hillary will justify war with an anecdote about a “young girl.”
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
If the person vying for the most powerful position in the western world is unable to stand up to “warmongers”, then she’s not the right fit for the job and should withdraw from running.
Except this is totally a lie, she wants war with Russia because that’s what her big money donors want her to do and she obviously does not have a problem accommodating their request. It surprises me even in CURRENT YEAR that the left wants their candidate to be presented as a victim instead of a leader.
Because Hitler was an incompetent ass.
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
The perfect crystallisation of the convergence between neo-Con and Cult-Marx mind-sets, as exemplified by the contemporary Clinton machine.
Well trolled, Tiny Duck, well trolled.
Sean:
“They were not fighting only the Russians by 1942. All that stuff about the Russians winning the war single handed is crap”
It actually isn’t, you ignoramus. Go read “Clash of the Titans”, a book that BTW was written by an American historian. It clearly demonstrates that the S.U took the blunt of the damage and was responsible for most of the losses of the Wehrmatcht in both men power and military hardware. Not to mention that the biggest battles of WW2(Stalingrad, Kursk, etc) were all between the Wehrmatcht and the Red Army. The battles between America and Japan in the Pacific and the few altercations between the Americans and the Germans after July, 1944 were minor triffles compared to the battles in the eastern front. When the U.S entered Europe at Normandy in July, 1944, Germany was already for all practical purposes defeated. The Red Army was already in western Poland by then. If America had never put a single G.I in Europe, the Soviets would have won anyway. The only difference is that it would have taken them another 6 months to 1 year. At best, America heistened Germany’s defeat by 6 months. That’s it. And, amazingly, the extremely depleted Wehrmatcht was still able to beat America several times despite America’s massive resource superiority. Americans required numerical superiority of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to win. When the Wehrmatcht and the Americans were fighting on equal numbers, the Germans tended to win.
Her is another fun fact for you, to make you swallow you patriotic pride: the Third Reich officially surrended to the Red Army
You may know of it by another name: D-DayReplies: @Mr. Anon
You know that how?
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
C’mon Tiny, please stop describing Mothership Russia as a some kind of utopian paradise on Earth; the Russkies are still far away from there at this point.
Unfortunately.
Chairman Mao had Buck Turgidson beat: “Don’t make a fuss about a world war. At most, people die… Half the population wiped out – this happened quite a few times in Chinese history… It’s best if half the population is left, next best one-third…”
-Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Rob McX, @Mr. Anon
I don’t know about anyone else, but Russian history is, AFAIK, one damned tsar after another (including Lenin, Stalin, etc.). And again, for myself, I HATE all autocrats. So I am pleased to consign Tsarism to the ash-heap with Communism. But Russia is the heir of the Byzantines, and the Byzantines, just like the Mahomets, never separated church and state. And I do not want to fight a war with Russia over the Ukraine. And I don’t want to fight a war with Russia over Latvia. Sorry, but the injustice Russia may, can or will visit upon you does not create an obligation on us to defend you. It sucks for you, but if we sign up for world policeman it sucks for us. I’d help you if I could, but I would not sacrifice the blood of even one of my warfighters to protect you from tyranny. I know that is cold, but if I sign up to protect you, I destroy the remnants of our Constitutional system.
None of us. Not one.
We (at least most of us) are opposing Hillary Clinton, so no, we don’t want to live under a real tsar.
No.
We don’t. We will be victims. But we have limited resources. We are resisting as best we can.
-Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Rob McX, @Mr. Anon
The alt-right aren’t against the right to defend one’s country. It’s just that Americans and Western Europeans don’t think it’s worth starting a war to stop Russia taking over some Baltic country (which probably isn’t going to happen anyway). And it would be particularly ridiculous to talk about stopping an invasion thousands of miles away when our own countries are being invaded every day by immigration. If the present immigration pattern continues, our countries will have been colonised completely by non-whites by the end of the century, just as effectively as if they had moved in with tanks and air support rather than as immigrants “seeking a better life”.
Right now Mao is just waiting for his hearing. And in waiting he knows his next stop is swimming in the Lake of Fire, because the blood of the innocents have condemned Mao.
As proven by our warm-up exercise in Afghanistan, for instance.
The whole world hates Russia, a homophobic islamaphobic Christian supremacist dictatorship. NATO with America at the head would crush Putin and his cronies.
A war against an evil empire is just what our country needs to unite us. If you losers do not want to support that YOU CAN LEAVE. America does not want your traitorousness.Replies: @Economic Sophisms, @Anon, @pooh, @Olorin, @Jasper Been, @Stebbing Heuer, @bored identity, @Difference maker
Ahahaha
Thank you all for providing such quotable materials about your schemes. Will be good to bring up when people question the reality of such plans. Really helpful
Not as smart as you thought you were, huh. In war with Russia, i will be the commissar sending you in the first wave
https://www.amazon.com/Illustrious-Dead-Terrifying-Napoleons-Greatest/dp/0307394050
This famous map of Napoleon’s dwindling army as he marched on Moscow and back is likely a graph of an epidemic or multiple epidemics, probably typhus was the big killer. Napoleon’s army was dying on its feet before he even crossed the border into Russia and he almost certainly knew it, one reason he had to advance on Moscow fast. Medicine was primitive at the time and his doctors had no real idea what was causing disease.
“The Illustrious Dead: The Terrifying Story of How Typhus Killed Napoleon’s Greatest Army”, Stephan Talty, 2010.
“Evidence for Louse-Transmitted Diseases in Soldiers of Napoleon’s Grand Army in Vilnius”, Didier Raoult, et al, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 193 Issue 1, Pp. 112-120:
“What constitutes “conquering Afghanistan?””
Making it less Afghanistani, I suppose. Alexander left the near-east considerably hellenized after his conquest. That influence persisted until the 7th century. He left little mark on Afghanistan and, if I remember correctly, withdrew his army from it, as being not worth the trouble. Just as Great Britain did in 1842, Russia did in 1989, and we will in…………?
The U.S. will withdraw when it comes to its senses. The Taliban will be back in control within a few weeks. It will be as if we had never been there.
“Conquering Russia is well within US capabilities.”
With or without trannies?
I think we have found Hillary’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Sean is volunteering for the job.
You are, evidently, a fool.
Immigration is an entirely separate issue from Russia. A war with Russia wouldn’t be over “Baltic states” or a “Syrian no fly zone”. It would be over spheres of influence and who has the upper hand in different parts of the world.
Woops, bungled the link.
Here is another link to that famous graph of Napoleon’s army dwindling over time on the march to Moscow and back:
http://scimaps.org/mapdetail/napoleons_march_to_m_9
Murdering hundreds of millions of Russians is within our capabilities. And their riposte would return the favor. And then you could send some SJW over there to proclaim the triumph of LBGTQWERTY over the Roose (rhymes with ‘Moose’). And the rest of us would be dead.
"They were not fighting only the Russians by 1942. All that stuff about the Russians winning the war single handed is crap"
It actually isn't, you ignoramus. Go read "Clash of the Titans", a book that BTW was written by an American historian. It clearly demonstrates that the S.U took the blunt of the damage and was responsible for most of the losses of the Wehrmatcht in both men power and military hardware. Not to mention that the biggest battles of WW2(Stalingrad, Kursk, etc) were all between the Wehrmatcht and the Red Army. The battles between America and Japan in the Pacific and the few altercations between the Americans and the Germans after July, 1944 were minor triffles compared to the battles in the eastern front. When the U.S entered Europe at Normandy in July, 1944, Germany was already for all practical purposes defeated. The Red Army was already in western Poland by then. If America had never put a single G.I in Europe, the Soviets would have won anyway. The only difference is that it would have taken them another 6 months to 1 year. At best, America heistened Germany's defeat by 6 months. That's it. And, amazingly, the extremely depleted Wehrmatcht was still able to beat America several times despite America's massive resource superiority. Americans required numerical superiority of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to win. When the Wehrmatcht and the Americans were fighting on equal numbers, the Germans tended to win.
Her is another fun fact for you, to make you swallow you patriotic pride: the Third Reich officially surrended to the Red ArmyReplies: @Ivy, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Jim Don Bob
June 6, 1944
You may know of it by another name: D-Day
You may know of it by another name: D-Day"You shouldn't assume that Senor Diaz knows much of anything at all. Take pity on him; clowns have it rough these days.
-Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Rob McX, @Mr. Anon
“And all these American admirers of the tsars here… please. How many of you know what real tyranny even means? Do you want to live under a real tsar (or even a semi-tsar like Putin)? Do you know what it means to be persecuted by the tsar’s secret service?”
No, and neither do you.
The last few Tsars weren’t so bad, especially compared to the communists. Putin can’t really be compared to a Tsar. He was a KGB man, trained and steeped in the communist system. He has the soul of a secret-policeman, and the outlook of a soviet bureaucrat.
I don’t blame you for mistrusting and disliking Putin. I don’t like or trust him either. But don’t expect that we would want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And I sure as hell don’t want to go to war with Russia over Syria.
“That’s right, a Russian woman flew into space way before American women could have jobs in the foreign service.”
A factory worker, press-ganged into being an astronaut, and she was screaming and freaking-out from launch to re-entry. Honestly, Laika (a dog) made a better astronaut than Mme. Tereshkova. And those russian bastards euthanized her (Laika, I mean) before the capsule landed. That’s a really crappy thing to do to man’s best friend. At least we brought our chimps back alive.
The flight that they put the dog on was up in space for almost six months, so they knew exactly what they were doing. The whole thing was brutal in the extreme, including the training. Growing up in a family of animal lovers, this episode was a big deal in our family.
You may know of it by another name: D-DayReplies: @Mr. Anon
“June 6, 1944
You may know of it by another name: D-Day”
You shouldn’t assume that Senor Diaz knows much of anything at all. Take pity on him; clowns have it rough these days.
No, and neither do you.
The last few Tsars weren't so bad, especially compared to the communists. Putin can't really be compared to a Tsar. He was a KGB man, trained and steeped in the communist system. He has the soul of a secret-policeman, and the outlook of a soviet bureaucrat.
I don't blame you for mistrusting and disliking Putin. I don't like or trust him either. But don't expect that we would want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And I sure as hell don't want to go to war with Russia over Syria.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
Where did I say I dislike Putin? In fact, I kind of like him. I like listening to his eloquent speeches (even though it is a waste of time). And I know plenty about ChK.
My point wasn’t meant literally – as in, there is a real tsar’s ohranka. I just called out the person who says he admires the “veneration of the Tsar”. I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for (and I’m saying this as a seasoned nationalist). Above all, if you’re not gonna show by example and actually submit to a tsar (a real one, not just some Wall street oligarch), then don’t criticize others for not wanting to do so.
Like the Budapest Memorandum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
That worked out very well for Ukraine.
No, and neither do you.
The last few Tsars weren't so bad, especially compared to the communists. Putin can't really be compared to a Tsar. He was a KGB man, trained and steeped in the communist system. He has the soul of a secret-policeman, and the outlook of a soviet bureaucrat.
I don't blame you for mistrusting and disliking Putin. I don't like or trust him either. But don't expect that we would want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And I sure as hell don't want to go to war with Russia over Syria.Replies: @Latvian woman, @Latvian woman
Where did I say I dislike Putin? In fact, I kind of like him. I like listening to his eloquent speeches (even though it is a waste of time).
My point wasn’t meant literally – as in, there is a real tsar’s ohranka or some other oppersive apparatus (but there would be). I just called out the person who says he admires the “veneration of the Tsar”. I’m just saying, be careful what you wish for (and I’m saying this as a seasoned nationalist). Above all, if you’re not gonna show by example and actually submit to a tsar (a real one, not just some Wall street oligarch), then don’t criticize others for not wanting to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
That worked out very well for Ukraine.Replies: @Latvian woman
AP, I know, trust me, I have thought a lot about this, and this Budapest memorandum is definitely something that hasn’t been brought up enough. The point I was trying to make was that NATO might potentially have to be re-structured in the future, if the US is unreliable, there has to be a stronger emphasis on European security (and Ukraine would be part of it). I know it is naive, but that might just be the reality.
So having his media aggressively support Black Lives Matter isn’t taking American interests at heart?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-propagandists-seize-on-ferguson-race-riots-1.1906546
I don’t know if Tereshkova was screaming or not, but Russian women had to work and fight, Americans were more protective (and prohibitive) of their women back then.
“…Give the endless legions of Hezbollah (haven’t heard much from them since the Israeli/Lebanon dustup about ten years ago)…”
Hezbollah has been quite in the news in the last few years, in particular during this last period and the siege of Aleppo. Assad in Syria is relying heavily upon Hezbollah and other militias to bolster his army, Hezbollah seems to have done a good bit of heavy fighting and are used as high-quality troops:
“Syrian Army, Hezbollah’s progress in southern Aleppo”, Leith Fadel, AMN, 27/10/2016:
“Aleppo Brings Hezbollah Back Into Focus”, Ben Cohen / JNS.org, October 26, 2016:
“Syrian Army, Allies Repel Major Terrorist Attack in Aleppo: None of Hezbollah Fighters Captured”, Al Manar, October 28, 2016:
Interpret these particular stories with appropriate windage, of course, but the point remains that Hezbollah participation on the ground has been heavy.
Assad is also relying on a local Aleppo Palestinian militia and numerous other smaller militias. (The following goes to show that you can’t just assume this is simple Sunni vs Shiite):
Liwa al-Quds:
As to be expected the Israelis are viewing Hezbollah with concern, etc.:
“Thanks in no small part to Russia, Hezbollah is now a full-fledged army”, Avi Issacharoff, The Times of Israel, June 30, 2016:
Hezbollah has been quite in the news in the last few years, in particular during this last period and the siege of Aleppo. Assad in Syria is relying heavily upon Hezbollah and other militias to bolster his army, Hezbollah seems to have done a good bit of heavy fighting and are used as high-quality troops:
"Syrian Army, Hezbollah’s progress in southern Aleppo", Leith Fadel, AMN, 27/10/2016:"Aleppo Brings Hezbollah Back Into Focus", Ben Cohen / JNS.org, October 26, 2016:"Syrian Army, Allies Repel Major Terrorist Attack in Aleppo: None of Hezbollah Fighters Captured", Al Manar, October 28, 2016:Interpret these particular stories with appropriate windage, of course, but the point remains that Hezbollah participation on the ground has been heavy.
Assad is also relying on a local Aleppo Palestinian militia and numerous other smaller militias. (The following goes to show that you can't just assume this is simple Sunni vs Shiite):
Liwa al-Quds:As to be expected the Israelis are viewing Hezbollah with concern, etc.:
"Thanks in no small part to Russia, Hezbollah is now a full-fledged army", Avi Issacharoff, The Times of Israel, June 30, 2016:Replies: @Steve Sailer
Hezbollah has been in nation-building mode among Lebanese Shi’ite hillbillies since the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. At that time the Shi’ites were somewhat pro-Israel but they got tired of the Israelis and then they decided they needed to get organized and stop being the doormat for everybody else in the region.
Hillary is hot for War with Russia because her bestest girl Huma, is for it. Huma is for it because her family are long-time, big time Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Her dad was a big deal back in the day, the Bin Laden without the (public) body count.
I’m not a huge Putin fan, but I don’t see any upside for picking a fight with him. I certainly don’t see it in my interest and that of the US to pick a fight with him over: Syria, Ukraine, or the Baltics. Germany too if it comes to that. After all its now just filled with Muslims and Africans. Putin might be an improvement there if he sends them all back home. Which he might – those people might want to move to Russia if the money moved there.
There was a book reviewed in the FT covering Putin’s circle. The thesis was that “Putin” was as much a creature of his various followers and allies as anything else, and has to keep them off balance; with much of the circle engaged in various feuds that turn murderous. We think of him as Stalin or Mao because that’s our mental model, but it may be incorrect. More like say, Al Capone or Meyer Lansky. First among his circle but always on the watch for challenges and having to keep various factions and leaders happy.
That might be a decent model to use on Hillary. Not the sole angry Lesbian anti-White male avenger, but a leader of a massive political machine filled with back-biting and feuds. Not particularly stable any more than Putin might be.
I don't understand why anyone on the alt-right disrespects Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia. These places clearly don't want to be ruled by Russia, and fought for decades or centuries not to be, and Putin clearly wants to expand Russia's hegemony over these places.
Here, I'll put it in alt-right terms: The Baltic countries are a major source of porn stars, escorts, and overseas brides, and Georgia and Armenia are probably the last traditionally conservative Christian countries in the World. Why do you wish them harm?Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @AP
Those who do, either don’t know anything but these countries, or have become “experts” about them by filling themselves up with nonsense from the Russian media.
Russia appeals to some Western conservatives because it does not promote native self-hatred. Russians are (mostly) white people who are proud of themselves. This is true of all other Eastern European nations too, but Russians are the best known of them all.
That being said, the idea of Russia as being some deeply conservative, Christian, moral, traditional place is as much of a fantasy of western rightists as was the idea of Stalin’s USSR as a workers and peasants paradise was a naive fantasy of Western leftists. It’s words and show. In terms of substance, Russia leads the world in abortion, leads the white world in HIV and homicide, is close to the top in divorce rate, and has a church-going rate on par with Germany’s and Sweden’s.
Russia’s enemy in Eastern Europe, Poland, is actually not only in words but also in deeds the most conservative and traditional European place. Western Ukraine (another enemy of Russia) is close behind. Russian bullets, in support of the Donbas (the HIV and abortion capital of Europe) are killing traditional, Christian western Ukrainians.
Here is a new textbook in post-Revolutionary Ukraine:
https://www.kyivpost.com/lifestyle/textbook-recommended-education-ministry-criticized-sexist.html
Stats:
HIV rate , Russia (2011): 1.1%
HIV rate, Ukraine (2012): .9%
HIV rate, USA (2011): .6%
HIV rate, Germany (2011): .1%
HIV rate, Poland (2011): .1%
Abortion rate, Russia (2013): 534
Abortion rate, Ukraine (2013): 293.3
Abortion rate, USA (2013): 252.7
Abortion rate, Germany (2013): 150.7
Abortion rate, Poland (2013): 2.61 (this is not a typo)
Homicide rate, Russia: 9.2
Homicide rate, USA: 4.7
Homicide rate, Ukraine 4.3
Homicide rate, France: 1.0
Homicide rate, Germany: .8
Homicide rate, Poland: .8
% who never attend religious services (2008)
Russia 30%-40%
Germany 30% – 40%
Ukraine 10% – 20%
Poland under 10%
Percentage marriages ending in divorce (2011):
USA: 53%
Russia: 51%
Germany: 49%
Ukraine: 42%
Poland: 27%
Note that Ukraine’s stats vary widely from west to east, with eastern Ukraine being even worse than Russia while western Ukraine is a lot like Poland.
So maybe we could hope that the Polish state security/intelligence organs are doing something to fix the US elections for Trump. They provided invaluable service in breaking the German Enigma codes before WW2.Replies: @AP
About Syria, Assad recently said something that’s probably mostly accurate:
“Assad: Syria Is the Battleground for Another ‘Cold War’ Between U.S., Russia”,
Why, we’ve always been in a state of More Than Cold War with Oceania…
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russian-propagandists-seize-on-ferguson-race-riots-1.1906546Replies: @Latvian woman
I don’t know how well you understand Russian or how much free time you have, but I would suggest listening to Alexandr Dugin. In one of his endless rants, he actually said that Russia should use marginal movements in the US to discredit the US. First, he complained that the West uses Russia’s “fifth column” (the so called creative class, dissidents, etc) to discredit and destabilize Russia. So Russia should return the favor and find a “fifth column” within the US – blacks, American Indians, whatever one can find. And then support those movements to try to destabilize America. So Black Lives Matter fits very well with this goal.
That is nothing new or surprising. Many Russians are happy about these events.
So much the worse. Our officer corps is a major reason we don’t win wars anymore – servile careerists utterly lacking integrity. Nothing is too despicable for them to close ranks around. Jeffrey Sinclair is proof enough of that. He would be in a cell at Leavenworth if he was an enlisted man. Instead he got to keep his slightly reduced pension. I’ve seen enlisted guys kicked out of the military without benefits for consensual adultery. Sinclair is a rapist and will be receiving a government pension until he dies.
Giving Kristol’s son the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s an honorable guy and an asset to the nation – so what? Bill Kristol was a military age male at a time when Uncle Sam was desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel. He thought Harvard was more important than Vietnam. That’s fine, I guess, but it takes some nerve to sit out a pointless quagmire and then decades later chastise others for wanting to do the same.
How should we think about USMC Captain Joseph Kristol "protecting" us?....Same way we should think about US Army Captain Khan's "service" to America. Did you enjoy His father Khizir Khan making a demographic threat to the Historic American Nation on National TV?
Bill Kristol is very fond of issuing demographic threats to the Historic American Nation..and I have no doubt that Joseph Kristol....working for Mckinsely these days....will be doing the same in the very near future.
And I can't possibly google everything that looks interesting. That's the way wiki walks start, and that is a very bad thing. And the possibility exists that walk will take you to TVTropes, and well... that's a whole day gone there practically.
On another note, concerning this "book of war." Here and there I've seen other references to this. I realize it's not like a compiled thing circulated to military leaders on photocopied pages worldwide.
But in the past I've seen stuff referenced as being from the book that basically said stuff like:
1) Never willingly assault an enemy position with less than 3 to 1 odds in your favor.
2) If the enemy is dug in on a hill, then you want 6 to 1.
3) You need ? occupying troops for every 100 people in an occupied area; depending on circumstances this could be higher. (Forget the number but it is pretty high, something like 3 or 4 - which makes a whole lot of what the US has been trying to do since WWII "against the book."
Does anyone know where there is a sort of collection of these rules of thumb somewhere?
As regards the things like assaulting positions, my take always was that it is pretty universal that you have a bond with the people you fight with. Even if you could take something with less than 3 to 1 odds, you want to go in with overwhelming force so you win with low fatalities to your side, as opposed to a pyrrhic victory. And the "odds" are a diminishing returns kind of thing.Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @flyingtiger
Or here’s one that’s even more precise than a rule of thumb, and explains why in modern warfare, a slight advantage can lead to a disproportionate victory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
Don’t help us but then don’t come around asking for favors from us either such as insist that we open our non-GMO country to Monsanto, that we support American IT companies in the European Parliament over private data protection, and don’t meddle with our Jews, just to name a few. Oh, and I also don’t like our men killing Muslims in their own countries for you. If I’m not mistaken in the second debate Trump started saying something about how he’s going to form a NATO coalition with a bunch of European countries to fight ISIS. Seriously? Right after he says he’s gonna throw us under the bus, he says he’ll ask us to go murder Sunnis in their own countries. If a Trump administration asked something like this of my government, I’d seriously oppose it (ISIS doesn’t directly threaten my country).
Stats:HIV rate , Russia (2011): 1.1%
HIV rate, Ukraine (2012): .9%
HIV rate, USA (2011): .6%
HIV rate, Germany (2011): .1%
HIV rate, Poland (2011): .1%Abortion rate, Russia (2013): 534
Abortion rate, Ukraine (2013): 293.3
Abortion rate, USA (2013): 252.7
Abortion rate, Germany (2013): 150.7
Abortion rate, Poland (2013): 2.61 (this is not a typo)Homicide rate, Russia: 9.2
Homicide rate, USA: 4.7
Homicide rate, Ukraine 4.3
Homicide rate, France: 1.0
Homicide rate, Germany: .8
Homicide rate, Poland: .8% who never attend religious services (2008)Russia 30%-40%
Germany 30% – 40%
Ukraine 10% – 20%
Poland under 10%Percentage marriages ending in divorce (2011):USA: 53%
Russia: 51%
Germany: 49%
Ukraine: 42%
Poland: 27%Note that Ukraine's stats vary widely from west to east, with eastern Ukraine being even worse than Russia while western Ukraine is a lot like Poland.Replies: @fnn, @biz
If only we could magically transform Poland into something resembling a world power. Or maybe not-the last time Poland had such pretensions was Sept. 1939.
So maybe we could hope that the Polish state security/intelligence organs are doing something to fix the US elections for Trump. They provided invaluable service in breaking the German Enigma codes before WW2.
The current Polish elite have affection for stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium
It's one reason why they are supporting Ukraine. This would be quite unpleasant for liberal Western Euros.Poland alone vs. both the USSR and Germany had no chance. Plus, it was taken by surprise. Even under such circumstances, it didn't do much worse than did a power such as France. Germany lost 27,000 troops in its invasion of France, 16,000 in its invasion of Poland.Trump's positive feelings towards Putin does not endear him that much to Poles. For them, he's the one American leader even worse than Democrats.Replies: @Latvian woman
Good thinking, lad!
The irony of Maidanites denouncing Russia’s insufficient conservative cred aside, this is 90’s legacy.
“With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.
(…)
“Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents.
“Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.
(…)
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, “They were LGBT.”
“It was an eye-opening moment,” wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.
“Author Masha Gessen, who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world.”
(…)
“In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.
“While the other super-powers march to a pagan world-view,” writes WCF’s Allan Carlson, “Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12.”
http://buchanan.org/blog/whose-side-god-now-6337
Under the “Russian system” Latvia was the USSR’s Taiwan and Wolfsburg rolled into one. Today all their (and Poles’) stuff belongs to RWE and Vattenfall, they pay Western prices for utilities, live off remittances from people working in Germany and the UK and are mad at Russia.
This Russian-speaker isn’t happy about BLM. But neither is he aware of Russia’s foreign policy being informed in any way by Dugin’s theories.
"They were not fighting only the Russians by 1942. All that stuff about the Russians winning the war single handed is crap"
It actually isn't, you ignoramus. Go read "Clash of the Titans", a book that BTW was written by an American historian. It clearly demonstrates that the S.U took the blunt of the damage and was responsible for most of the losses of the Wehrmatcht in both men power and military hardware. Not to mention that the biggest battles of WW2(Stalingrad, Kursk, etc) were all between the Wehrmatcht and the Red Army. The battles between America and Japan in the Pacific and the few altercations between the Americans and the Germans after July, 1944 were minor triffles compared to the battles in the eastern front. When the U.S entered Europe at Normandy in July, 1944, Germany was already for all practical purposes defeated. The Red Army was already in western Poland by then. If America had never put a single G.I in Europe, the Soviets would have won anyway. The only difference is that it would have taken them another 6 months to 1 year. At best, America heistened Germany's defeat by 6 months. That's it. And, amazingly, the extremely depleted Wehrmatcht was still able to beat America several times despite America's massive resource superiority. Americans required numerical superiority of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to win. When the Wehrmatcht and the Americans were fighting on equal numbers, the Germans tended to win.
Her is another fun fact for you, to make you swallow you patriotic pride: the Third Reich officially surrended to the Red ArmyReplies: @Ivy, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Jim Don Bob
We did provide a little help by blockading them from trade from the rest of the world and a bombing campaign that damagoed 20% of all houses and reduced them to making synthetic oil in underground factories that were regularly put out of action.
I'm not a huge Putin fan, but I don't see any upside for picking a fight with him. I certainly don't see it in my interest and that of the US to pick a fight with him over: Syria, Ukraine, or the Baltics. Germany too if it comes to that. After all its now just filled with Muslims and Africans. Putin might be an improvement there if he sends them all back home. Which he might - those people might want to move to Russia if the money moved there.
There was a book reviewed in the FT covering Putin's circle. The thesis was that "Putin" was as much a creature of his various followers and allies as anything else, and has to keep them off balance; with much of the circle engaged in various feuds that turn murderous. We think of him as Stalin or Mao because that's our mental model, but it may be incorrect. More like say, Al Capone or Meyer Lansky. First among his circle but always on the watch for challenges and having to keep various factions and leaders happy.
That might be a decent model to use on Hillary. Not the sole angry Lesbian anti-White male avenger, but a leader of a massive political machine filled with back-biting and feuds. Not particularly stable any more than Putin might be.Replies: @Almost Missouri
I don’t know what evidence the FT book adduced for all this, but it strikes me as unlikely. As you aver, such situations are unstable and therefore have short time horizons. But the Putin regime has been remarkable for its longevity, not to mention its ability to plan and carry out subtle, difficult and long term plans on a national and international scale. And then there are the more cosmetic things, like language and presentation. A gangster leader who is “always on the watch for challenges” uses publicity opportunities to crow about his strength and make bombastic claims (COUGHhillaryCOUGH), but Putin is remarkably measured, consistent and understated in his public pronouncements.
Maybe underneath all this Putin really is just a gangster, but if so, he would have to be a superhuman one.
Making it less Afghanistani, I suppose. Alexander left the near-east considerably hellenized after his conquest. That influence persisted until the 7th century. He left little mark on Afghanistan and, if I remember correctly, withdrew his army from it, as being not worth the trouble. Just as Great Britain did in 1842, Russia did in 1989, and we will in............?Replies: @Diversity Heretic
I think that Ghenghis Khan conquered a large portion of Afghanistan and Tamerlane conquered most of the rest. I don’t know how long the Mongols stayed or how far their power extended back up into the hills. They were willing to wipe out large parts of the country and repopulate it Mongols.
The U.S. will withdraw when it comes to its senses. The Taliban will be back in control within a few weeks. It will be as if we had never been there.
"Assad: Syria Is the Battleground for Another ‘Cold War’ Between U.S., Russia",Why, we've always been in a state of More Than Cold War with Oceania...Replies: @Sean
The US is being drawn into Russia’s spheres of influence because Russia is fading; it’s on the back foot because it is a third world country in every department except nuclear weapons. It’s never going to be a threat to the US, unlike China.
Those aren’t favors to America. We don’t want any of that stuff here either. Those are favors for the Globalist vampire squid. And yes, we’re trying to stop it here too, which means taking on DC, NY, LA, the MSM, the SJWs, the intel services, academia, Wall Street, the Fed, Soros, the Dems, the GOPe, Hollywood, and the auxiliary volunteer thought police living next door; in short: the corrupt and world powerful Establishment. Wish us luck.
Giving Kristol's son the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's an honorable guy and an asset to the nation - so what? Bill Kristol was a military age male at a time when Uncle Sam was desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel. He thought Harvard was more important than Vietnam. That's fine, I guess, but it takes some nerve to sit out a pointless quagmire and then decades later chastise others for wanting to do the same.Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
How exactly is Joesph Kristol an assest to the Nation?…In the Patriotard sense? Why should Military service for the US Empire evoke reverential awe?
How should we think about USMC Captain Joseph Kristol “protecting” us?….Same way we should think about US Army Captain Khan’s “service” to America. Did you enjoy His father Khizir Khan making a demographic threat to the Historic American Nation on National TV?
Bill Kristol is very fond of issuing demographic threats to the Historic American Nation..and I have no doubt that Joseph Kristol….working for Mckinsely these days….will be doing the same in the very near future.
The Old Right: draft dodgers whose only loyalty is to Wall Street.
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks/
Stats:HIV rate , Russia (2011): 1.1%
HIV rate, Ukraine (2012): .9%
HIV rate, USA (2011): .6%
HIV rate, Germany (2011): .1%
HIV rate, Poland (2011): .1%Abortion rate, Russia (2013): 534
Abortion rate, Ukraine (2013): 293.3
Abortion rate, USA (2013): 252.7
Abortion rate, Germany (2013): 150.7
Abortion rate, Poland (2013): 2.61 (this is not a typo)Homicide rate, Russia: 9.2
Homicide rate, USA: 4.7
Homicide rate, Ukraine 4.3
Homicide rate, France: 1.0
Homicide rate, Germany: .8
Homicide rate, Poland: .8% who never attend religious services (2008)Russia 30%-40%
Germany 30% – 40%
Ukraine 10% – 20%
Poland under 10%Percentage marriages ending in divorce (2011):USA: 53%
Russia: 51%
Germany: 49%
Ukraine: 42%
Poland: 27%Note that Ukraine's stats vary widely from west to east, with eastern Ukraine being even worse than Russia while western Ukraine is a lot like Poland.Replies: @fnn, @biz
Great post.
Russia also has the worst state-corporatist, crony-ist oligarchic economy in the world.
The alt-right obsession with Russia is the equivalent of the leftist obsession with Islam: People pathetically sucking up to a group that basically displays the opposite of their supposed values, just to stick it to the man.
"They were not fighting only the Russians by 1942. All that stuff about the Russians winning the war single handed is crap"
It actually isn't, you ignoramus. Go read "Clash of the Titans", a book that BTW was written by an American historian. It clearly demonstrates that the S.U took the blunt of the damage and was responsible for most of the losses of the Wehrmatcht in both men power and military hardware. Not to mention that the biggest battles of WW2(Stalingrad, Kursk, etc) were all between the Wehrmatcht and the Red Army. The battles between America and Japan in the Pacific and the few altercations between the Americans and the Germans after July, 1944 were minor triffles compared to the battles in the eastern front. When the U.S entered Europe at Normandy in July, 1944, Germany was already for all practical purposes defeated. The Red Army was already in western Poland by then. If America had never put a single G.I in Europe, the Soviets would have won anyway. The only difference is that it would have taken them another 6 months to 1 year. At best, America heistened Germany's defeat by 6 months. That's it. And, amazingly, the extremely depleted Wehrmatcht was still able to beat America several times despite America's massive resource superiority. Americans required numerical superiority of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to win. When the Wehrmatcht and the Americans were fighting on equal numbers, the Germans tended to win.
Her is another fun fact for you, to make you swallow you patriotic pride: the Third Reich officially surrended to the Red ArmyReplies: @Ivy, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Jim Don Bob
Agree that the USSR took the brunt of defeating Germany; they routinely took casualties in excess of 40000 partly because of Stalin’s insistence on no retreat. But the USA helped by shipping massive amounts of material to the USSR, including locomotive engines. Much of Soviet industry was moved beyond the Urals after Hitler attacked, but it took a while to get going again.
Hitler started the invasion a month late and the snow was early that year but his troops got within sight of Moscow and probably could have taken it had Hitler listened to his generals. It was a close run thing, as the Brits are fond of saying.
That’s ridiculous. That region is one of the most-conquered in the history of the world.
Manhattan resident leaves note on neighbor's door telling him to keep it down or he'll call the cops.
#YourVeryBlackNeighbor responds by filing complaints with the NYCLU, ACLU, and NYPD because his gentrifying white neighbor is committing violence against his black body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/
I'll leave a copy of the "viral letter" here:Replies: @grapesoda, @Daniel Williams, @guest, @guest
That letter-writer is using words and a style over his head. He does appear to posses basic literacy, however, so good for him. But he should stick to the eighth grade level, or so, and not flaunt his ignorance.
Manhattan resident leaves note on neighbor's door telling him to keep it down or he'll call the cops.
#YourVeryBlackNeighbor responds by filing complaints with the NYCLU, ACLU, and NYPD because his gentrifying white neighbor is committing violence against his black body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/
I'll leave a copy of the "viral letter" here:Replies: @grapesoda, @Daniel Williams, @guest, @guest
He’s right about black bodies and noise. Good God.
“Nukes on both sides are a deterrent to *nuclear* war”
Nukes are also a deterrent to war-war. Unless I missed the Great Russo-American War of 1955.
If Hillary gets us into a nuclear war with Russia, I'll feel so much better knowing that her heart wasn't really in it.Replies: @guest
Pressured, like he was pressured to secure the black vote for Democrats for the foreseeable future by pushing the civil rights acts.
“I’ll out red-bash the Republicans, and it’ll be LBJs in the White House for all of eternity!”
Wars can and have been fought with nukes.
I understand, but just because you personally don’t want it, doesn’t mean that thousands of American nationals don’t benefit from it.
Anyway, Monsanto is now owned by your European neighbor Bayer, professional readers of other people's email should categorically find new work, and I don't really understand what the Jew meddling thing is but I probably don't disagree.
(...)
"Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents."Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated.(...)
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, “They were LGBT.”“It was an eye-opening moment,” wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest."Author Masha Gessen, who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world.”
(...)
"In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.“While the other super-powers march to a pagan world-view,” writes WCF’s Allan Carlson, “Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12.”http://buchanan.org/blog/whose-side-god-now-6337Under the "Russian system" Latvia was the USSR's Taiwan and Wolfsburg rolled into one. Today all their (and Poles') stuff belongs to RWE and Vattenfall, they pay Western prices for utilities, live off remittances from people working in Germany and the UK and are mad at Russia.This Russian-speaker isn't happy about BLM. But neither is he aware of Russia's foreign policy being informed in any way by Dugin's theories.Replies: @Latvian woman
This is a complete and utter lie. The reason the Baltic states were well off was because they were developed before the Soviet occupation and then plundered. Despite the myths you’ve been fed we had both a well functioning industrial sector and a great civil society. Back in the Soviet days one little Latvia was supposed to feed all of St Pete. After we left Russia, our agricultural input has doubled. We have competitive IT companies. The living standard has risen incredibly, remittances make only a fraction of incomes, this is not Central Asia. Where in the former USSR is anything cheap? Utilities are only cheap in Russia because you have oil. Everything else is expensive, including housing. Tons of stuff is affordable in the Baltics such as medical care, daycare, organic food. Namely, all the good and important things.
I could go on and on. But my main point was something else – the lack of freedom which is still the case for you in Russia. Granted the US currently has a freedom deficit too, but at least the US still has some pluralism. I like Putin but do I wanna live under him? No. I like many things Russian, but do I want to lose parliamentarianism and free press? No. And I’m not talking about fags dancing in the street (which they do in Russia as the most popular Russian pop stars are total flamers who don’t even hide it). I’m talking about pressuring all levels of civil society. You can have a free society without the globalists in charge.
I have no problem with the Russians as long as they don’t start BS lies like you just did above. There would be no need for militarizing if you didn’t constantly start nonsense like that.
You probably don’t even live in Russia. I was talking about Russians in Russia, who whenever something bad happens to the US, rejoice. You know damn well what I’m talking about. And, yes, Dugin’s theories are very popular. The dude loves to talk and just lays it all out. Nobody ever shuts him down just like nobody ever shuts Zhirik down. These guys openly say what the polite ones don’t want to say out loud.
Oh, and one more thing. As I said, Trump was going to grow the military and he was going to start another campaign which means he was ready to kill many innocents (which means he is just another interventionist). And use us to do it (collect bad kharma). The only one who wouldn’t was Ron Paul.
WeI wish you luck of course either way.
Whoever those “thousands” of “Americans” are, I don’t know, but I suspect they are the kind who are embarrassed to be thought of as “American”.
Anyway, Monsanto is now owned by your European neighbor Bayer, professional readers of other people’s email should categorically find new work, and I don’t really understand what the Jew meddling thing is but I probably don’t disagree.
Well, yeah, but … to be honest, I don’t think he really means it. It looked more like it was just the electoral equivalent of trash talking. Hillary amped up her warmongering, so Trump didn’t want to appear meek by comparison. He said earlier that he was content to let Putin sort out Syria, and I think he still is, and so am I.
I agree that Hillary was laying it on too thick with regards to Russia (although if Russian actors really did hack DNC, that is very serious and I wonder if there is any way to show proof to the public).
My issue is that both Russia and the US will attack small, weak states, but when the time comes to pick someone their own size, they both get scared. Btw, causing the refugee crisis is a big negative for Europeans and a burden that could’ve been avoided. It’s easy when you’re sheltered by two big oceans and don’t have to pay for your actions (I know you already agree).
Well, at least there was a bit of good news on US / Russia today – the US Air Force apologized to Russia for a very close fly by that took place recently. Maybe it means they’re not as reckless as is assumed on this site and there is some good will.
“…we were not fighting the North Koreans during the Korean War, we were fighting the Chinese from 1950 to 1953. We had a major war, not with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but with China. China remembers all these things.”
The Korean War was a big deal. Some random points:
We (on paper the United Nations; units such as those of the Turks fought bravely, even India contributed medics; of course the US and British or ex-British militaries did most of the heavy lifting) had a major war with the Communist world after it looked like we had defeated the North Koreans. We fought a Chinese Army and a Soviet Air Force [2], [3] [4], with the Soviets also supplying the weapons used by the Chinese.
The Chinese were shocked that their massive army with modern Soviet infantry and artillery weapons did not defeat the UN in 3 months. The army they used had been ear-marked for the invasion of Taiwan, so much of the later Chinese economic miracle (involving Taiwan and south China connections) might not have happened if not for the Korean war. The Korean war made modern Japan, a ridiculous portion of their GDP in the early 50s resulted from the war.
The Korean war split the communist world, it may have been the blow from which which communism never recovered. Both Soviet and Chinese governments felt used; the Soviet felt like they’d paid and supplied the means and should have say in things, the Chinese felt like they had done most of the fighting and dying so they should be in charge. Within about 15 years the Chinese and Soviets were
fighting each other.
The US, which had been drawing down its military after WWII (the USAF, for instance, had real trouble finding Sabre pilots and had to “borrow” Navy, Marine, and Allied pilots) went on a permanent military world-wide war footing (the Cold War) that we are still living with.
Indicative of the nature of the war, exact casualty figures are not known (Chinese, in particular, were high):
After the Chinese and Soviets entered the war, the US no longer had air superiority over all of Korea, due to the Mig-15 (thanks, Liberal British government for giving the Soviets the engines! [2]):
From the earlier links:
Soviet casualties in Korea were about 300, mostly aircrew. As more documentation comes out about the war, it is clear that the Soviet economy and manufacturing was pressed past its limits, disappointing its allies. For more:
“China, the Soviet Union, and the Korean War: From an Abortive Air War Plan to a Wartime Relationship”, Zhang Xiaoming, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Spring 2002:
So maybe we could hope that the Polish state security/intelligence organs are doing something to fix the US elections for Trump. They provided invaluable service in breaking the German Enigma codes before WW2.Replies: @AP
Poland was a world power when it was united with Ukraine. At that time, it captured Moscow, and crushed the Turks, saving Vienna and perhaps Europe.
The current Polish elite have affection for stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium
It’s one reason why they are supporting Ukraine. This would be quite unpleasant for liberal Western Euros.
Poland alone vs. both the USSR and Germany had no chance. Plus, it was taken by surprise. Even under such circumstances, it didn’t do much worse than did a power such as France. Germany lost 27,000 troops in its invasion of France, 16,000 in its invasion of Poland.
Trump’s positive feelings towards Putin does not endear him that much to Poles. For them, he’s the one American leader even worse than Democrats.
“…conquered a large portion of Afghanistan… I don’t know how long the Mongols stayed or how far their power extended back up into the hills…”
The third largest ethnic group in Afghanistan are the Hazaras, who clearly have some conection to the Mongols:
Here’s one of a number of recent stories about Iran recruiting and funding largely Hazara Afghan militia to fight in Syria (in particular building-to-building in Aleppo):
The “IRGC commander discusses Afghan militia, ‘Shia liberation army,’ and Syria”, Amir Toumaj, Majalla, September 25, 2016:
:
“Iran covertly recruits Afghan Shias to fight in Syria”, Sune Engel Rasmussen and Zahra Nader, The Guardian, 30 June 2016:
Broke-a-link:
Liwa Fatemiyoun
(“…an Afghanistani Shia militia formed in 2014 to fight in Syria for the government…”)
Yes, the bear-baiting is stupid. Granted, there was some severe bear-baiting coming from the Republicans in the primary as well.
Hillary has many faults, but she's not a warmonger the way that, say, John McCain is a warmonger. She doesn't have much natural interest in military matters. She doesn't think war or military service is glorious or honorable.
She wants to look tough for political reasons -- as a woman, she enters the playing field with the assumption that she'll be soft, which is perhaps acceptable for a female senator, but not for a Commander-in-Chief. So she's spent her whole career trying to play contrary to that role within the scope of what's acceptable for a liberal Democrat.
She could be pressured into a war she's not really interested in, the way LBJ probably was. But like him, it would probably be under pressure from the true warmongers.Replies: @antipater_1, @Almost Missouri, @Bill, @Sid, @Anon, @Jack Hanson, @anonymous, @Dan Hayes, @Federalist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Wency
Discussion has surely moved on from here, but I want to note that I am not even remotely pro-Hillary. I think that a number of people here are biased enough that anything short of attributing every possible human failing to Hillary is perceived as being on her side. I think that Steve is rather less biased than the average commenter here, or at least aspires to be, so I directed my remark at him.
My only point is that warmongering is primarily a Republican vice, not a Democratic one, and if you fail to see that, you’re probably not thinking clearly on this matter. When Democrats get tough on national security, it’s an attempt at triangulation, to build political capital with Republicans.
This is not to say that Trump is more of a warmonger than Hillary. I’d expect Trump to be either one of the most warlike or least warlike presidents in recent history. Hillary would be average warlike for a Democrat.
And I can't possibly google everything that looks interesting. That's the way wiki walks start, and that is a very bad thing. And the possibility exists that walk will take you to TVTropes, and well... that's a whole day gone there practically.
On another note, concerning this "book of war." Here and there I've seen other references to this. I realize it's not like a compiled thing circulated to military leaders on photocopied pages worldwide.
But in the past I've seen stuff referenced as being from the book that basically said stuff like:
1) Never willingly assault an enemy position with less than 3 to 1 odds in your favor.
2) If the enemy is dug in on a hill, then you want 6 to 1.
3) You need ? occupying troops for every 100 people in an occupied area; depending on circumstances this could be higher. (Forget the number but it is pretty high, something like 3 or 4 - which makes a whole lot of what the US has been trying to do since WWII "against the book."
Does anyone know where there is a sort of collection of these rules of thumb somewhere?
As regards the things like assaulting positions, my take always was that it is pretty universal that you have a bond with the people you fight with. Even if you could take something with less than 3 to 1 odds, you want to go in with overwhelming force so you win with low fatalities to your side, as opposed to a pyrrhic victory. And the "odds" are a diminishing returns kind of thing.Replies: @Jack D, @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @flyingtiger
The rule seems to be you need one soldier for every 50 civilians to prevent Guerrillas from developing regular units. Once they become this establish the can attack and defend. We lost in Vietnam because we never had a 50-1 ratio. In Northern Ireland, the British was able to maintain a 50-1 ratio so the IRA never could advance to standing units.
PiltdownWoman, as part of an America delegation, once met Valentina Tereshkova in a professional setting for some length of time. She says that that account is strongly at odds with her impression of Tereshkova.
What is verifiable is that Tereshkova experienced severe nausea during the flight.
The current Polish elite have affection for stuff like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium
It's one reason why they are supporting Ukraine. This would be quite unpleasant for liberal Western Euros.Poland alone vs. both the USSR and Germany had no chance. Plus, it was taken by surprise. Even under such circumstances, it didn't do much worse than did a power such as France. Germany lost 27,000 troops in its invasion of France, 16,000 in its invasion of Poland.Trump's positive feelings towards Putin does not endear him that much to Poles. For them, he's the one American leader even worse than Democrats.Replies: @Latvian woman
As I’ve stated elsewhere on these forums, Intermarium is an idea definitely worth exploring. It might be the way to go.
Actually, Laika wasn’t murdered by the Soviets; she died some hours after liftoff from overheating. However, the commies didn’t want to admit that they had screwed up so they floated the false story about euthanizing her a few days into the flight. (the oxygen ran out in six days as it was.)
The flight that they put the dog on was up in space for almost six months, so they knew exactly what they were doing. The whole thing was brutal in the extreme, including the training. Growing up in a family of animal lovers, this episode was a big deal in our family.
“A factory worker, press-ganged into being an astronaut…”
This doesn’t seem accurate. Valentina Tereshkova:
Vostok 6 might have had a close call:
The reason they needed an experienced skydiver was because Vosktok astronauts didn’t land in their capsule. They ejected from the capsule (the capsule would hit the ground too fast.):
Nukes are also a deterrent to war-war. Unless I missed the Great Russo-American War of 1955.Replies: @Sean
Rhetoric aside, the threat of an incredible action is not a credible deterrent. The highest reaches of policymaking in the US and USSR knew the Soviet Union could take western Europe but couldn’t have the conventionally fought global WW3 that would follow, so it’s very far from obvious that but for nuclear weapons, a Russia-US war would have have happened. Moreover I don’t accept that wars will necessarily proceed to the use of all available weapons (“act of violence without compromise, in which states fight to war’s natural extremes … without the ‘grafted’ political and moral moderations.) . What Clausewitz calls absolute war was never reached before the introduction of nuclear weapons, so it not being reached afterwards may indicate nukes have merely added another redundant rung on the ladder of theoretical possibilities of escalation.
In 1961 the Soviets authorized attack sub commanders to use nuclear torpedos (tactical nukes), because trying to communicate with Moscow would mean that the submarine would have to emerge and so could easily be destroyed. On board an attack sub of the three senior officers on board (all of whom had to agree to attack) only one of them didn’t agree. The other two thought that war had already been declared (remember it was Americans blockading in international waters, in clear violations of international law, and they were using depth charges to force the sub to the surface), and so wanted to use the torpedo with the nuclear warhead.
So there was very little (if any) reluctance on the part of the Soviets to use tactical nukes if they authorized low-ranking officers (normally a captain and an equivalent political officer, in the case of that one sub two captains and one political officer) to use them if they feel necessary without consulting anyone higher up. To think that somehow in a world war they nevertheless wouldn’t have used them beggars belief. I mean, it was already authorized.
All nuclear subs crews can fire nuclear torpedoes (or missiles) without anyone else, and if they thought an unstoppable homing missile was on its way to kill them all they might well fire one off whatever the order, so it wasn’t that much of a practical change. Still it is not clear that subs were authorized to use nuclear torpedoes without being attacked first (nuke or otherwise). It was at sea, and during the Cuba crisis, the cause of which was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Force
This means it would definitely not be a "pure" conventional war. The Soviets could easily destroy any naval grouping venturing too close to their shores with nukes. This means that once the USSR conquered Europe, there would be zero chance of a US invasion D-Day style. Had Hitler had nuclear anti-ship missiles...
How would the US then win a "conventional" (but with tactical nukes at sea) war against the USSR?
OK, so let me guess: in case of a war, there would be ample tactical nuke use at sea. Also the nuclear mines in West Germany. (To the latter a possible response by the Soviets would’ve been, let me guess, more tactical nuke usage? But let’s just put that aside.)
This means it would definitely not be a “pure” conventional war. The Soviets could easily destroy any naval grouping venturing too close to their shores with nukes. This means that once the USSR conquered Europe, there would be zero chance of a US invasion D-Day style. Had Hitler had nuclear anti-ship missiles…
How would the US then win a “conventional” (but with tactical nukes at sea) war against the USSR?
I’m not sure what kind of safety features there were on Soviet attack subs at the time, so that might well have been true. I’m not sure it still applies, I thought the nuclear launch code needs to be disseminated to the submarines in order for them to launch. But maybe I’m wrong, and I’m lazy to check now, so I’ll just accept it.
I don’t think that’s so in a professional military, especially not in the USSR where your family members might be prosecuted for serious violations.
Besides, it strengthens my case: nukes might be used even if the government doesn’t want them used.
As I understand it the weapons have to be armed to be ready to fire, which takes a while, so they they would have had to have armed the torpedoes (a Russian sub in the Cuba crisis that was being harassed is supposed to have had that order issued before the commander was calmed down and countermanded it) but in a situation when the sub commander realized the other side had actuality fired something that would kill him in a mo, even if it was a conventional subroc, the submarine commander he would quite possibly reciprocate with a nuclear torpedo. Probably that is why nuke torpedoes are no longer around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use was the policy of those who think they can win conventionally. As it says in the link it used to be Soviet Russia and now Russia is saying they would use nuclear weapons. The US kept trying to say battlefield nukes (like the nuclear bazooka) the were different, obviously they wanted to be able to halt a overwhelming Soviet conventional attack limited nuclear war over in Germany without the Soviets hitting the US.
Anyway, nuclear torpedoes and depth charges are no longer around, like the nuclear bazooka, which rather proves my point that policymakers and the military have decided they don’t want to start a nuclear war to avoid a conventional loss. There is a lot of bluffing going on, with first Nato and then now the Russians implying they were ready to, as a first resort, nuke any conventional attack, but it was the weak side that said it and it was a lie.
The Russian claim to have a nuclear doomsday torpedo is a lie and a symptom of how scared they are of the US trying to use its nuclear and conventional superiority in a conventional war/ nuclear Mexican standoff.