Sly and Sneaky Starmer's Latest Ego Trip. (1 Viewer)

[AngelSpeaks]

Does anyone remember the "police action" in Vietnam where the generals were never allowed to blitzkrieg the enemy and that "action" dragged on for years, with a really humiliating retreat that was the fall of Saigon and an ending that left a lot of Americans disillusioned enough to start a real anti-war movement? It tore the country apart.

Does anyone remember Operation Desert Storm that, because Gen. Schwartzkopf was allowed to go in and knock everything down, took only four days before it was over? That wasn't a police action, it was a war of doing to the enemy thoroughly before they did anything to us. The speed and success of that action left the country feeling exhilarated. We didn't have TIME for an anti-war movement to start because the whole war was over way too soon and was way too successful.

Does anyone remember the quagmire that was Afghanistan? The Russians tried to fight that battle and got kicked out. The USA tried to fight that battle and the final withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. It seems to me that between Russia and the USA, Afghanistan ground on for 20 years and the Islamic guerillas outlasted everyone.

There is no way to win an war of attrition by grinding away at it. You either knock it all down HARD and all at once or you weren't there to win anyway. Zelinsky has little or no chance unless he gets EU support.

I certainly remember Stormin Norman and his excellent leadership.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

IIRC, "Stormin' Norman" was like Eisenhower in regard to his military career. He was a specialist in tank warfare just like Eisenhower was a specialist in logistics. The military kept them active and ready but behind the scenes in a relatively remote or isolated role - until they were needed. Then they were suddenly elevated to a role with far more authority. The same could be said about Patton, a tank commander from another era. However, Gen. Schwarzkopf was more amiable and less arrogant than Patton. I felt a bit sorry for Saddam Hussein's forces in that they were sent in to face a big wood-chipper that ground them up and spit them out. I'm sure that at least some of them signed up out of loyalty to their country or belief in Saddam's leadership. But the "highway of death" that resulted from their disorderly retreat made it impossible for them to recover, regroup, and riposte from the battle.

 

[Steve R.]

As a complimentary thought on military philosophy, I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld a former Secretary of Defense. Time tends to erode one's memory. I recall some post Vietnam thinking by Rumsfeld that impressed me. Wikipedia has a stub article: Rumsfeld Doctrine. The article does not mention when this doctrine was first put forth or how successful it has been. Based on the main Rumsfeld Wikipedia article the doctrine was put forth in 2003. A lot later than I remember it being. In reality, it appears that the Rumsfeld Doctrine has been ignored by the US. Key elements bullet pointed below.

• High-technology combat systems;
• Reliance on air forces;
• Small, nimble ground forces.

Not included in the bullet points above, is/was the implied concept of not seizing and/or holding territory. Get in and get out. That is what I believed to have been the significant innovative approach. The Israelis seem to have successfully implemented this strategy, which is one reason I remember it. The Rumsfeld Doctrine may actually be based on how Israel protects itself. The main Wikipedia article contains this quote:

Rumsfeld also stated "the only way to deal with these terrorist threats is to go at them where they exist. You cannot defend at every place at every time against every conceivable, imaginable, even unimaginable terrorist attack. And the only way to deal with it is to take the battle to where they are and to root them out and to starve them out by seeing that those countries and those organizations and those non-governmental organizations and those individuals that are supporting and harboring and facilitating these networks stop doing it and find that there's a penalty for doing it"

The full Wikipedia article on Donald Rumsfeld doesn't apparently discuss the innovative of concepts (success and/or failure) of the Rumsfeld Doctrine. From my hazy recollections; the US involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hot spots of the Middle East ignored Rumsfeld's doctrine. That raises the obvious question on whether any US military leaders even bought into the Rumsfeld Doctrine? It seems to have been ignored.

 

[Isaac]

So after 1-1 1/2 years of your neighbour moving the boundary line on to your plot you would do what?

If my whole family had died fighting them , and I had gone 3 years making absolutely zero progress with everyone dead, I would probably SURRENDER
Aka negotiate to give Russia some land

Or at the very least I would sure be willing and humble and open-minded if the US is able to make a deal somehow even if I have to give out some of my rare Earth minerals.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Seems to me trump wants a share (do these minerals exist in the USA? I don’t know)

Yes but we are not allowed to use little brown children to mine them and leave huge swaths of destruction behind as happens in the rest of the world. These minerals have a very small payload and so it takes huge movements of material to extract what we have.

War is hell and that is not fixable. We should never go into a war that we don't have every intention of winning ASAP and that means we need to be brutal. War should be a last resort but if we go to war, we need to play to win at all costs. I'll remind you again of one of the Start Trek morality plays. The Enterprise materializes in a star system and is informed that there is a war going on and that the Enterprise has been destroyed and the crew needs to beam down to the planet to be euthanized. So the away team goes down to assess the situation. Apparently the war has been underway for a very long time and so much property was being destroyed and there were so many civilian causalities hat the combatants were having trouble sustaining the fighting so they decided to use computers and let the computers decide who wins each battle and then only the fighting people had to die. There were no civilian causalities. Well, Jim being Jim solved the problem neatly by pulling the plug on the war games computers forcing them to either make peace or revert to actual battles. Star Trek just made everything simple and they never used money except in a couple of episodes where they went back in time to old earth.

 

[GaP42]

If my whole family had died fighting them , and I had gone 3 years making absolutely zero progress with everyone dead, I would probably SURRENDER
Aka negotiate to give Russia some land

But that is not the situation is it - while many have died, there are many fighting, many injured, much destruction of property. but they resist and persist. Put yourself in their position - being attacked by aggressor, a dictator, having your family under threat, having lost or injured some family members, of being at risk of losing your property you have lived on and owned possibly for generations - would you fight like hell?
And if conceded what security would you have anyway? Will Ukraine be allowed to join the EU to ensure their security? So if not what is to stop Russia continuing the incursion/ incorporation of Ukraine (trying to re-establish the old USSR-style puppet states). What of the right of the people of Ukraine to decide their own destiny? How much interference in the running of Ukraine will continue after this "peace" is made?
What retribution awaits for those within any conceded land? What has happens to those who have resisted the Russian state? What peace would exist at the border between those on opposite sides who have suffered loss? This will not end simply/ quickly by conceding "some" land.

 

[Isaac]

But that is not the situation is it - while many have died, there are many fighting, many injured, much destruction of property. but they resist and persist. Put yourself in their position - being attacked by aggressor, a dictator, having your family under threat, having lost or injured some family members, of being at risk of losing your property you have lived on and owned possibly for generations - would you fight like hell?
And if conceded what security would you have anyway? Will Ukraine be allowed to join the EU to ensure their security? So if not what is to stop Russia continuing the incursion/ incorporation of Ukraine (trying to re-establish the old USSR-style puppet states). What of the right of the people of Ukraine to decide their own destiny? How much interference in the running of Ukraine will continue after this "peace" is made?
What retribution awaits for those within any conceded land? What has happens to those who have resisted the Russian state? What peace would exist at the border between those on opposite sides who have suffered loss? This will not end simply/ quickly by conceding "some" land.

So how long do you propose they keep fighting?

 

[GaP42]

I am not the one to decide for them. You can see how so many in different places in the world now and in the past have held on to their history, their heritage and will not concede.

 

[Isaac]

I am not the one to decide for them. You can see how so many in different places in the world now and in the past have held on to their history, their heritage and will not concede.

You're not the one giving them $200 billion dollars, either.. unfortunately they can't go on fighting for all time and eternity on other people's money

 

[Isaac]

I am not the one to decide for them. You can see how so many in different places in the world now and in the past have held on to their history, their heritage and will not concede.

Trump vs Zelensky

Did you watch the now infamous video, I'm particularly interested in your opinion as long as you watched the longer version which is about a full 5 minutes long or so that led to the shouting match and the big problem between Trump and Zelensky? If so what do you think? (I want you to have...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

But even notwithstanding the money, I think that basic human decency and a respect for human life demands that they not go on fighting forever. It seems to me that this is becoming a little bit like the Middle East. Two extremely similar peoples (who insist that they are very different from one another) fighting for all eternity over a small strip of land. It's ridiculous! it's a wasteful and needless loss of human life ... Zelensky is not going to have a male left in the country

 

[GaP42]

But is it not the money that you / Trump is interested in - willing to continue the conflict if Ukraine concedes and "sells" its rare earth minerals in exchange for continued support? As I think you concede Russia is not a party to be trusted, so what is the exchange for if it does not include a security guarantee?
The Middle East is one such conflict which persists through generations - the dogma of each side will ensure continued conflict. But there have been others - the Irish troubles have hopefully gone forever. Gives some hope that these conflicts can be resolved.
Such conflicts are extreme and abhorrent. People form alliances/allegiances of them and us on the basis of ethnicity/ religion and ownership of land (wealth). Rationalisation of arguments for such conflicts are then often obscured under layers of misdirection/ obfuscation

 

[AccessBlaster]

Maybe someone should have thought through NATO expansion in that part of the world, and the lives it would cost?

 

[Steve R.]

Maybe someone should have thought through NATO expansion in that part of the world, and the lives it would cost?

The NATO expansion issue has been well known irritant. The purpose of NATO, theoretically, was to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe. Unfortunately NATO, through its expansion, has been "attacking" what is now Russia. Russians tend to be paranoid too.

Enter the Biden administration. It appeared that they wanted "war" and were provoking Putin. One, Biden dropped the hint that a "minor" incursion (whatever that would be) would be OK. Next, they flagrantly tossed around the concept that the Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, would be entitled to join NATO. That Russia could go pound sand as they couldn't prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO. I also do not recall the Biden administration actually initiating a diplomatic effort to defuse the situation. Such an effort may have been undertaken, but I don't recall this ever being reported to the public.

There is some earlier history too that must be considered. See the narrative from Grok below:

The question of neutrality often ties back to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. After independence, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, making it the third-largest nuclear power at the time. To secure its sovereignty and avoid regional instability, Ukraine agreed to relinquish these weapons in exchange for security assurances. The memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom on December 5, 1994, committed the signatories to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and to refrain from the use or threat of force against it. Some interpret this as implying a neutral status for Ukraine, since it gave up its nuclear deterrent and relied on international guarantees rather than aligning with a military bloc like NATO. However, the memorandum didn’t explicitly require Ukraine to remain neutral—it was silent on Ukraine’s right to choose alliances.

It would seem that Putin violated the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. What is interesting is that this agreement is not being cited today??????? It seems to have disappeared into oblivion for some reason. The US should be getting on a bullhorn to remind the world that Putin did not respect the borders of the Ukraine.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But even notwithstanding the money, I think that basic human decency and a respect for human life demands that they not go on fighting fore

The flaw in your thinking, my friend, is the presumption that they have an ounce of basic human decency and any respect for human life. The rule is ALWAYS simple. When faced with barbarians, you beat them into submission and then let them sue YOU for peace. Civilized people will find any way to avoid war. (As shown in the Star Trek episode mentioned above - "A Taste of Armageddon.") Given the way Putin and his crowd operate now and HAVE operated for years, I have to say that your presumption is ill-based.

 

[AccessBlaster]

If Zelensky returns to the negotiation table, will Trump offer the same deal as before, or will he raise the stakes? Personally, I think the old deal is off the table, and Trump will demand more concessions from Zelensky.

 

[Cotswold]

Who are the unaccountable and unknown people running NATO?

 

[moke123]

The US should be getting on a bullhorn to remind the world that Putin did not respect the borders of the Ukraine.

Shouldn't that be the president's responsibility?

 

[Steve R.]

Shouldn't that be the president's responsibility?

So why didn't Biden speak-up just prior to the 2nd Russian invasion?
Why didn't Obama speak-up when Russia invaded the Crimea?

 

[Isaac]

But is it not the money that you / Trump is interested in - willing to continue the conflict if Ukraine concedes and "sells" its rare earth minerals in exchange for continued support? As I think you concede Russia is not a party to be trusted, so what is the exchange for if it does not include a security guarantee?
The Middle East is one such conflict which persists through generations - the dogma of each side will ensure continued conflict. But there have been others - the Irish troubles have hopefully gone forever. Gives some hope that these conflicts can be resolved.
Such conflicts are extreme and abhorrent. People form alliances/allegiances of them and us on the basis of ethnicity/ religion and ownership of land (wealth). Rationalisation of arguments for such conflicts are then often obscured under layers of misdirection/ obfuscation

No, it's a mixture of everything. It's the fact that zielinski is just coolly sacrificing a thousand people a week to continue what is clearly an unwinnable war. It's the monetary support also. It's wrong on every level. Trump is trying to negotiate an end to the war not just continued support.

Zielinski has the blinders on to some extent I think that's obvious to almost everyone. He's consumed with the idea of a totally unilateral decisive win which obviously just isn't going to happen. It's become a little bit like Moby Dick. Just a little more and will win, just a little more, just a little more. 3 years.
Zielinski keeps feeding his people this propaganda that the war is almost won. Likely that's why he has a relatively strong approval rating. I am pretty sure if they knew what they know now, 2 years ago. They would have been happy to turn off the flow of dead & raped bodies 2 years ago.

It's one thing to be totally hostile to a country like Iran that is only on their way to becoming a nuclear power. It's another thing to act that way towards someone who already is a nuclear power. Negotiation is required.

After all this do you really think Russia is going to try this again anytime soon? Their military has also been decimated to a significant degree

 

[Isaac]

The flaw in your thinking, my friend, is the presumption that they have an ounce of basic human decency and any respect for human life. The rule is ALWAYS simple. When faced with barbarians, you beat them into submission and then let them sue YOU for peace. Civilized people will find any way to avoid war. (As shown in the Star Trek episode mentioned above - "A Taste of Armageddon.") Given the way Putin and his crowd operate now and HAVE operated for years, I have to say that your presumption is ill-based.

And yet your presumption is based on something we know just isn't true, the idea that they can beat Russia into submission. Doc, they're not going to win all they're doing is throwing away lives