Ukraine conflict
01-15-2024, 08:12 AM
#2001
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,713
god you are easy to rip apart.
moors in the 700s
england invaded in the 1000s
mongol hordes in 1200s
the “idea” is that there has been no check on international aggression until post ww2…..but you knew that….keep spitting pigeon ….maybe cut and paste a few articles, it’ll really prove your point
not sure if your reading comprehension is out to lunch, but last I checked, iraq was not a major world power. Furthermore they invaded their neighbor and were put back in their place. Try and keep up pigeon. Arguing with you is like arguing with a little child trying to be captain obvious because they know they are wrong.
christ man do you know how many times england spain and france fought each other over the last 500 years? Are you really this dumb to miss the point?
the world has been objectively safer as a whole since ww2. If you don’t understand that concept then you have no idea what has happened since man first picked up a club and bashed the neanderthals into isolation and subsequent non existence. Get a grip pigeon.
i feast on your troll tears, they taste so good 😊
moors in the 700s
england invaded in the 1000s
mongol hordes in 1200s
the “idea” is that there has been no check on international aggression until post ww2…..but you knew that….keep spitting pigeon ….maybe cut and paste a few articles, it’ll really prove your point
not sure if your reading comprehension is out to lunch, but last I checked, iraq was not a major world power. Furthermore they invaded their neighbor and were put back in their place. Try and keep up pigeon. Arguing with you is like arguing with a little child trying to be captain obvious because they know they are wrong.
christ man do you know how many times england spain and france fought each other over the last 500 years? Are you really this dumb to miss the point?
the world has been objectively safer as a whole since ww2. If you don’t understand that concept then you have no idea what has happened since man first picked up a club and bashed the neanderthals into isolation and subsequent non existence. Get a grip pigeon.
i feast on your troll tears, they taste so good 😊
And seriously, you are trying to convince people that the Battle of Hastings - involving a total of less than 8000 troops - COUNTING BOTH SIDES - was a "world war"?
https://images.app.goo.gl/hyYYLesv4MVREzRZ7
01-15-2024, 11:14 AM
#2002
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,713
Another voice heard from:
https://www.politico.eu/article/west...ne-war-russia/
Now I don't agree with all of what this guy says but he makes some valid points. The problem is that wars are a come-as-you-are sort of proposition and much of what you need is long lead time procurement which can't be made better in just a few fiscal years and that includes the US defense industrial base that has seen a lot of BRACs even before the demise of the USSR.
But the greatest inadequacy - far worse than that of the US, has been the Europeans underfunding their own defense, particularly EUs biggest economies, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. It was obvious even 50 years ago but so many "peace dividends" have been taken out of these countries' budgets in the 30+ years since the demise of the USSR that there is damn little there there. And while the US had adequate stockpiles for its OWN needs, its industrial base wasn't adequate - especially with the COVID induced supply chain problems - to surge enough to make up for empty armories and magazines for the rest of NATO.
And the rest of NATO isn't entirely to blame for that. While they only gave lip service to funding their true needs, we only gave lip service to compelling them to do so. You can't have free riders in any organization and still expect it to function, it's sort of the old "tragedy of the commons" story, when there are no real consequences for being feckless and you believe Uncle Sam will pick up the slack anyway it becomes a race to the bottom. Yeah, every different administration since the Carter administration has jawboned the Western Europeans about theur fecklessness on defense spending, but none have really held anyone's feet to the fire to actually get them to do it.
Couple that with the US being overcommitted (We now find our antiaircraft/cruise missile/ballistic supplies having to cope with Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah, and Houthi ordnance, and still deter an invasion of Taiwan) and the supply chain issues and the fact the ATF gets all pi$$ed off if you try to work from home building major weapons systems like MANPADS and 155mm artillery shells and the cupboard is getting pretty damn bare.
So I think that this guys opinion that we can give the Ukrainians what they need to beat the Russians at this point is fantasy, unless he believes we should give them nukes. I think this is going to wind up the way Korea did with an armistice and the division of the Ukrainian areas now held by Russia including Crimea for an indefinite period. It's been a meatgrinder and Ukraine is just sort of running out of meat to grind.
Now that doesn't mean an inevitable conquest by Russia of the rest of the old USSR far less Western Europe, assuming this gives our NATO allies the incentive to stop being feckless. Had they been appropriately prepared to begin with I doubt that even Putin would have tried this.
And I'll leave you with this thought:
Now I don't agree with all of what this guy says but he makes some valid points. The problem is that wars are a come-as-you-are sort of proposition and much of what you need is long lead time procurement which can't be made better in just a few fiscal years and that includes the US defense industrial base that has seen a lot of BRACs even before the demise of the USSR.
But the greatest inadequacy - far worse than that of the US, has been the Europeans underfunding their own defense, particularly EUs biggest economies, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. It was obvious even 50 years ago but so many "peace dividends" have been taken out of these countries' budgets in the 30+ years since the demise of the USSR that there is damn little there there. And while the US had adequate stockpiles for its OWN needs, its industrial base wasn't adequate - especially with the COVID induced supply chain problems - to surge enough to make up for empty armories and magazines for the rest of NATO.
And the rest of NATO isn't entirely to blame for that. While they only gave lip service to funding their true needs, we only gave lip service to compelling them to do so. You can't have free riders in any organization and still expect it to function, it's sort of the old "tragedy of the commons" story, when there are no real consequences for being feckless and you believe Uncle Sam will pick up the slack anyway it becomes a race to the bottom. Yeah, every different administration since the Carter administration has jawboned the Western Europeans about theur fecklessness on defense spending, but none have really held anyone's feet to the fire to actually get them to do it.
Couple that with the US being overcommitted (We now find our antiaircraft/cruise missile/ballistic supplies having to cope with Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah, and Houthi ordnance, and still deter an invasion of Taiwan) and the supply chain issues and the fact the ATF gets all pi$$ed off if you try to work from home building major weapons systems like MANPADS and 155mm artillery shells and the cupboard is getting pretty damn bare.
So I think that this guys opinion that we can give the Ukrainians what they need to beat the Russians at this point is fantasy, unless he believes we should give them nukes. I think this is going to wind up the way Korea did with an armistice and the division of the Ukrainian areas now held by Russia including Crimea for an indefinite period. It's been a meatgrinder and Ukraine is just sort of running out of meat to grind.
Now that doesn't mean an inevitable conquest by Russia of the rest of the old USSR far less Western Europe, assuming this gives our NATO allies the incentive to stop being feckless. Had they been appropriately prepared to begin with I doubt that even Putin would have tried this.
And I'll leave you with this thought:
"An alliance is like a chain. It is not made stronger by adding weak links to it. A great power like the United States gains no advantage and it loses prestige by offering, indeed peddling, its alliances to all and sundry. An alliance should be hard diplomatic currency, valuable and hard to get, and not inflationary paper from the mimeograph machine in the State Department." ~ Walter Lippmann
01-15-2024, 07:31 PM
#2003
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,323
700s, 1000s, and 1200s doesn't hack it. You said "generation" which you defined as 70 years. And you said 1% which means a 7000 year look back. And these were hardly "world wars." And the people who died on both sides in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. are just as dead as anybody who died in a "world war."
And seriously, you are trying to convince people that the Battle of Hastings - involving a total of less than 8000 troops - COUNTING BOTH SIDES - was a "world war"?
https://images.app.goo.gl/hyYYLesv4MVREzRZ7
And seriously, you are trying to convince people that the Battle of Hastings - involving a total of less than 8000 troops - COUNTING BOTH SIDES - was a "world war"?
https://images.app.goo.gl/hyYYLesv4MVREzRZ7
good god man you argue with everyone just to argue.
ill ask you one question…answer yes or no:
have there been more wars between the worlds major nation states (apparently you need a disclaimer like a child that “major” is relative to the generation) before ww2 versus after?
max’s point is spot on, you just cant handle it and pout like a little baby trying to get literal. You know that when someone becomes the grammar/literal police. It just proves that they have nothing else to say, and are ceding the argument. You know that right?
you think the sumarians didnt invade their neighbors? Have you read about the constant warfare n the byzantine era? The colonial era?
god youre dense
Post World War II has been the most peaceful time in human history relative to major nation states. That is objective fact. I’m not sure why that spins you up and you get mad…..
actually, I do, it doesn’t fit your agenda that you’ve been attempting to spin here for the last two years. Keep spinning your top Tucker, you’ll get em any second now.
You got to 6 unanswered fear porn agenda driven cut and pastes, furiously clicking away on your keyboard, with no one caring to answer …..lets see if you can get to 7…..ready, hack…..
Last edited by Hubcapped; 01-15-2024 at 07:43 PM.
01-15-2024, 07:47 PM
#2004
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,323
https://www.politico.eu/article/west...ne-war-russia/
Now I don't agree with all of what this guy says but he makes some valid points. The problem is that wars are a come-as-you-are sort of proposition and much of what you need is long lead time procurement which can't be made better in just a few fiscal years and that includes the US defense industrial base that has seen a lot of BRACs even before the demise of the USSR.
But the greatest inadequacy - far worse than that of the US, has been the Europeans underfunding their own defense, particularly EUs biggest economies, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. It was obvious even 50 years ago but so many "peace dividends" have been taken out of these countries' budgets in the 30+ years since the demise of the USSR that there is damn little there there. And while the US had adequate stockpiles for its OWN needs, its industrial base wasn't adequate - especially with the COVID induced supply chain problems - to surge enough to make up for empty armories and magazines for the rest of NATO.
And the rest of NATO isn't entirely to blame for that. While they only gave lip service to funding their true needs, we only gave lip service to compelling them to do so. You can't have free riders in any organization and still expect it to function, it's sort of the old "tragedy of the commons" story, when there are no real consequences for being feckless and you believe Uncle Sam will pick up the slack anyway it becomes a race to the bottom. Yeah, every different administration since the Carter administration has jawboned the Western Europeans about theur fecklessness on defense spending, but none have really held anyone's feet to the fire to actually get them to do it.
Couple that with the US being overcommitted (We now find our antiaircraft/cruise missile/ballistic supplies having to cope with Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah, and Houthi ordnance, and still deter an invasion of Taiwan) and the supply chain issues and the fact the ATF gets all pi$$ed off if you try to work from home building major weapons systems like MANPADS and 155mm artillery shells and the cupboard is getting pretty damn bare.
So I think that this guys opinion that we can give the Ukrainians what they need to beat the Russians at this point is fantasy, unless he believes we should give them nukes. I think this is going to wind up the way Korea did with an armistice and the division of the Ukrainian areas now held by Russia including Crimea for an indefinite period. It's been a meatgrinder and Ukraine is just sort of running out of meat to grind.
Now that doesn't mean an inevitable conquest by Russia of the rest of the old USSR far less Western Europe, assuming this gives our NATO allies the incentive to stop being feckless. Had they been appropriately prepared to begin with I doubt that even Putin would have tried this.
And I'll leave you with this thought:
Now I don't agree with all of what this guy says but he makes some valid points. The problem is that wars are a come-as-you-are sort of proposition and much of what you need is long lead time procurement which can't be made better in just a few fiscal years and that includes the US defense industrial base that has seen a lot of BRACs even before the demise of the USSR.
But the greatest inadequacy - far worse than that of the US, has been the Europeans underfunding their own defense, particularly EUs biggest economies, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. It was obvious even 50 years ago but so many "peace dividends" have been taken out of these countries' budgets in the 30+ years since the demise of the USSR that there is damn little there there. And while the US had adequate stockpiles for its OWN needs, its industrial base wasn't adequate - especially with the COVID induced supply chain problems - to surge enough to make up for empty armories and magazines for the rest of NATO.
And the rest of NATO isn't entirely to blame for that. While they only gave lip service to funding their true needs, we only gave lip service to compelling them to do so. You can't have free riders in any organization and still expect it to function, it's sort of the old "tragedy of the commons" story, when there are no real consequences for being feckless and you believe Uncle Sam will pick up the slack anyway it becomes a race to the bottom. Yeah, every different administration since the Carter administration has jawboned the Western Europeans about theur fecklessness on defense spending, but none have really held anyone's feet to the fire to actually get them to do it.
Couple that with the US being overcommitted (We now find our antiaircraft/cruise missile/ballistic supplies having to cope with Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah, and Houthi ordnance, and still deter an invasion of Taiwan) and the supply chain issues and the fact the ATF gets all pi$$ed off if you try to work from home building major weapons systems like MANPADS and 155mm artillery shells and the cupboard is getting pretty damn bare.
So I think that this guys opinion that we can give the Ukrainians what they need to beat the Russians at this point is fantasy, unless he believes we should give them nukes. I think this is going to wind up the way Korea did with an armistice and the division of the Ukrainian areas now held by Russia including Crimea for an indefinite period. It's been a meatgrinder and Ukraine is just sort of running out of meat to grind.
Now that doesn't mean an inevitable conquest by Russia of the rest of the old USSR far less Western Europe, assuming this gives our NATO allies the incentive to stop being feckless. Had they been appropriately prepared to begin with I doubt that even Putin would have tried this.
And I'll leave you with this thought:
01-15-2024, 08:41 PM
#2005
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Fully Retired
Posts: 7,000
01-15-2024, 08:42 PM
#2006
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,713
01-15-2024, 08:50 PM
#2007
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,713
As I said, there are things in the article that I disagree with but it was a well thought out article that tried for a broad look at what the author believes is necessary to carry the day against Russian imperialism. Without single ad hominem attack in it. Yiu ought to try thinking through a problem like the author did and critiquing the parts of it you like and dislike. Simply saying you feel sorry for his neighbors, wife, kids, coworkers, dog, cat, etc., is pretty intellectually lightweight...to say the least.
01-15-2024, 09:34 PM
#2008
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,713
Hub:
ill ask you one question…answer yes or no:
have there been more wars between the worlds major nation states (apparently you need a disclaimer like a child that “major” is relative to the generation) before ww2 versus after?
ill ask you one question…answer yes or no:
have there been more wars between the worlds major nation states (apparently you need a disclaimer like a child that “major” is relative to the generation) before ww2 versus after?
Originally Posted by Hubcapped [img]images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/img]
only in the last 1% (70 years) of recorded human history have we avoided “world” wars every generation…….that is not subjective……so answer me why?
only in the last 1% (70 years) of recorded human history have we avoided “world” wars every generation…….that is not subjective……so answer me why?
In the last 70 years alone we had The Chinese invasion of Tibet that has caused an estimated 1.2 million deaths.
the Korean War:
The war would last for three years and claim the lives of over 800,000 military personnel and around one and a half million civilians. While a peace treaty was agreed between the two sides in 1953, the South's dictator, Syngman Rhee, refused to sign it and the two sides are technically still at war with a de factoceasefire in place.
The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war
The breakup of Yugoslavia:
Casualties. Some estimates put the number of killed in the Yugoslav Wars at 140,000. The Humanitarian Law Center estimates that in the conflicts in former Yugoslav republics at least 130,000 people lost their lives.
The fact that you are ignorant of these wars doesn't mean that they didn't occur or that your ludicrous statement is correct.
01-15-2024, 09:50 PM
#2009
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,598
To recap the recent past..Tsar falls, does Russia find peace within? No. Lenin era? No. Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin? No, no ,no, no, no. What hazy fantasy makes anyone begin to claim this will be any different? Whatever comes next, it’s going to be bloody. Care to guess who will collect the blame AND the bill?
01-16-2024, 05:09 AM
#2010
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,323
Seriously? You are asking if there have been more wars in the last 70 years than in the preceding 7000 years of recorded history? Of course not. But that wasn't your original assertion. Your original assertion was:
your claim that only in the last 70 years have we avoided "world" wars every generation is ludicrous on the face of it. Especially when you gave as an example of a "world" war the Norman invasion of Britain whose decisive battle involved less than 8000 personnel on both sides.
In the last 70 years alone we had The Chinese invasion of Tibet that has caused an estimated 1.2 million deaths.
the Korean War:
The Vietnamese War:
Multiple India-Pakistan wars and border conflicts causing approx 200,000 casualties and leaving 14 million people displaced.
The breakup of Yugoslavia:
And literally dozens of others whose scale exceeded that of the Norman invasion you cite as a "world war."
The fact that you are ignorant of these wars doesn't mean that they didn't occur or that your ludicrous statement is correct.
your claim that only in the last 70 years have we avoided "world" wars every generation is ludicrous on the face of it. Especially when you gave as an example of a "world" war the Norman invasion of Britain whose decisive battle involved less than 8000 personnel on both sides.
In the last 70 years alone we had The Chinese invasion of Tibet that has caused an estimated 1.2 million deaths.
the Korean War:
The Vietnamese War:
Multiple India-Pakistan wars and border conflicts causing approx 200,000 casualties and leaving 14 million people displaced.
The breakup of Yugoslavia:
And literally dozens of others whose scale exceeded that of the Norman invasion you cite as a "world war."
The fact that you are ignorant of these wars doesn't mean that they didn't occur or that your ludicrous statement is correct.
one snap shot of europe says it all.
the idea that the world has not changed from the days of manifest destiny when compared to the last 70 years is just asinine. The only thing i can think of is that you have such an axe to grind youve let your emotions run in front of your cognition….but who am i kidding… you’re a boomer glued to his right wing fear porn.
why is this so hard, vlad the cut an paster?
Is your blood sugar low from no eggs?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
