Yeah, I gave Ogg a little more credit than that.
When ineedhelp1 agreed with Ogg, that should have made him reconsider his stance on the issue.
*nods*
Question for our friends on the left
- Thread starter TJX
- Start date
Yeah, I gave Ogg a little more credit than that.
When ineedhelp1 agreed with Ogg, that should have made him reconsider his stance on the issue.
*nods*
BidudeinWi
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Posts
- 3,600
CornusKousa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,822
^^ YDB once again totally ignoring facts and reality.
What a GOOD "progressive" leftist.
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 13,909
Now it's my turn to ask, though I'll probably regret asking. Exactly what is it about us that gets under your skin? We have no intention of raising your taxes unless you're richer than Trump, which I feel safe in assuming you're not. We don't want to take your guns unless you've given us a damn good reason to do so. We don't care in the least what you do on your own time as long as you don't hurt anyone. So why so angry?
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
OK, Karen.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 19,770
Dipshit, don’t put words in my mouth, I challenged our rules of engagement not use of nukes. You’re such a scumbag.
Last edited:
Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
As bad as world's policeman sounds, I can only imagine who would step up in our absence.
Wonder how China, for example, would behave as the world's policeman.
We, mainly the Left, hated Trump as a policeman, but now support Biden as the policeman,
even though he more resembles a Keystone Cop than he does classic Dragnet.
Isolationism does not work. As we have learned in the past, putting off a fight
only makes a fight worse. As the cooper put it to the Samurai [paraphrase], it's
not good for business; when the fight gets this big, they've no use for coffins.
(A Kurosawa reference)
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Terms of Engagement
If you are fighting a war, any war, the terms of engagement should be as strong and clear as possible, within the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
But since 1945, US terms of engagement have prevented the military from doing what they could.
The justification for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan was (and is) that they prevented massive loss of life - allies and Japanese. That justification could have been used in subsequent wars - but wasn't.
Even without nuclear use (and why were tactical nuclear artillery rounds developed if they were never to be used?), the US didn't use everything it could have used in Vietnam - for political reasons. US politicians sent US troops to their deaths instead of letting them use all the weaponry they had.
Was it because US politicians weren't really committed to winning? Or were they half-hearted about the reasons for the war?
Either way, men died in Vietnam unnecessarily because of the terms of engagement.
During the Falklands War, the British Terms of Engagement were clear - kick the Argentines off the Falkland Isles. Although the General Belgrano was outside the UK-declared 200-mile exclusion zone, she was a threat and was eliminated. That caused a small uproar in the Media, but that was within the UK Terms of Engagement, as would have been the Argentine Aircraft carrier, which scuttled back to port as soon as it was clear the British would attack it anywhere.
Perhaps, as many commentators have said, it was because media access to the Falklands War was very limited and controlled. There were no pictures of burning children or firebombed villages, or public executions as appeared in the US during Vietnam.
The military are professionals. They should be given as much freedom as possible to use anything and everything they have to win. But they are not allowed to - while the other side has no such restrictions. That is mad.
When General Eisenhower was given supreme command before D-Day 1944 his instructions were to 'enter Europe and destroy the German Armed Forces'. The instructions went on about relationships with other Allied commanders etc but the message was clear and unequivocal - 'destroy'. There were no provisos about how he was to 'destroy'. The decisions were his.
If you are fighting a war, any war, the terms of engagement should be as strong and clear as possible, within the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
But since 1945, US terms of engagement have prevented the military from doing what they could.
The justification for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan was (and is) that they prevented massive loss of life - allies and Japanese. That justification could have been used in subsequent wars - but wasn't.
Even without nuclear use (and why were tactical nuclear artillery rounds developed if they were never to be used?), the US didn't use everything it could have used in Vietnam - for political reasons. US politicians sent US troops to their deaths instead of letting them use all the weaponry they had.
Was it because US politicians weren't really committed to winning? Or were they half-hearted about the reasons for the war?
Either way, men died in Vietnam unnecessarily because of the terms of engagement.
During the Falklands War, the British Terms of Engagement were clear - kick the Argentines off the Falkland Isles. Although the General Belgrano was outside the UK-declared 200-mile exclusion zone, she was a threat and was eliminated. That caused a small uproar in the Media, but that was within the UK Terms of Engagement, as would have been the Argentine Aircraft carrier, which scuttled back to port as soon as it was clear the British would attack it anywhere.
Perhaps, as many commentators have said, it was because media access to the Falklands War was very limited and controlled. There were no pictures of burning children or firebombed villages, or public executions as appeared in the US during Vietnam.
The military are professionals. They should be given as much freedom as possible to use anything and everything they have to win. But they are not allowed to - while the other side has no such restrictions. That is mad.
When General Eisenhower was given supreme command before D-Day 1944 his instructions were to 'enter Europe and destroy the German Armed Forces'. The instructions went on about relationships with other Allied commanders etc but the message was clear and unequivocal - 'destroy'. There were no provisos about how he was to 'destroy'. The decisions were his.
Last edited:
Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
Well said Ogg...
No, what is mad is the thought of waging nuclear war in a county that wanted nothing more than to kick out foreign dominance. This was not a case of Ho Chi Minh wanting to take over the fucking world, like Germany or Japan in WW2! What the hell are you thinking?
And yeah, America was half-hearted about the reasons for that war. Over half the country knew that it was wrong to be maintaining a kill ratio of 6 Vietnamese dead to every dead American soldier when the reason for being there was so flimsy. What are you thinking-- that we should have obliterated the country and increased that kill ratio even greater just to "win"?
We were right to leave. We should have left much sooner. Our meddling in that nation was a huge mistake. Thank God for the political pressure that got us out, after having three Presidents complicit in making that mess progressively worse. Your attitude reflects the old British Empire state of imperialism. Are you still longing for those days? You are not too old to change that attitude.
adrina
Heretic
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Posts
- 25,430
CornusKousa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,822
^ Asks a question and as if he already knows he pre-empts the answers with lies.
100% bull fucking shit lies. Ya'll started artificially imposing costs and running prices up (taxing everyone), locking everything down and charging a premium for your brand of oppression the SECOND you took over the federal government.
Another point blank fucking lie that deliberately and dishonestly ignores not just the parties official platform and how blue jurisdictions treat gun owners but also what nearly every (D) runs on.
Tell me more about how bakers have to do gay wedding dick cakes and wear 8 masks in their home along or their murders.
Probably has something to do with the ethno-socialist and racial identitarian leftist destroying the country and trying to force their lifestyle/politics down his throat.
CornusKousa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,822
Anyone who's not a Maoist sounds psychotic to you.
Anyone who uses that term so loosely is a pathetic troll.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Wrong. If you are fighting a war you should aim to win, not restrict yourself unnecessarily.
Either war is necessary or if not you shouldn't start it. The UK stayed out of Vietnam because we didn't think it should have been fought at all. We had lost too many men in Korea to be gung-ho about any wars.
Many of us were unconvinced about Iraq, particularly Iraq II. But we were also worried about Iraq I. That should have continued to Saddam's complete defeat. We were sold Iraq II on the basis that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use on the West - but there weren't any. We were lied to by the then Prime Minister - Tony Blair. After Iraq I and II we should have been very careful to have clear objectives for Afghanistan.
We Brits should have learned not to trust US aims in wars and stayed away. In Iraq and in Afghanistan the US objectives for what would and should happen after we had 'won' were unclear and muddled. That should have been a warning. The US still hasn't learned the lessons of Vietnam - regime change is difficult and impossible if the people of the country don't want it.
CornusKousa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,822
The term isn't used loosely, it is used accurately though.
The "progressive" leftist in the US and other western nations?
Are openly advocating society rid itself of it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture so that we as a collective society can "progress" into a more equitable future for all!!!
They're Maoist..... now be a good "progressive" and go get some more statues and historical sites torn down.
Maybe go have some mostly peaceful struggle sessions with whitey.
US Democrat "activist" 2020.
https://policetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dc-5-716x375.jpg
Mao's Red Guard in the 50's....notice any similarities??
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/0d6cad_3948fb56e53e40c3ab2e78991f782763~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_749,h_499,al_c,q_90/0d6cad_3948fb56e53e40c3ab2e78991f782763~mv2.jpg
Keep that "progressive" fist in the air comrade Coati
it's for "progress".
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 13,909
I think so too. Just ten minutes or so of Fox News and you can at least see why their base gets so riled up - and there are people who literally watch that garbage all day long.
An informed answer is not possible - there are too many unknowns. We can surely look to a more significant role for the major European powers; China is dealing more effectively than the US in many cases with its own big problems, covid included, Russian power is reduced, etc etc, and fewer people will likely die as a result of mistakes and policies emanating from Washington.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,127
Nature abhors a vacuum. The United States military excels at Breaking Stuff (their historical mission), but absolutely shits the bed at Nation Building (their role since 1945). The Marshall Plan is looking increasingly like a one-off victory.
Ceding the role of the "world's policeman" gives China carte blanche to increase it's sphere of influence unimpeded.
Well, Jeezus, Ogg, this was obviously a war that should not have been started.
Subsequent history of Vietnam proves that they were never a significant threat to the USA. Once you start a war like that, and then realize it is wrong, you have a moral obligation to quit, not to bomb your opponent into oblivion just to "win".
Many German soldiers in WW2 took your advice to "not restrict yourself unnecessarily", even after learning that Jews and others were being rounded up and slaughtered in camps.
Regarding Vietnam, what you call political interference in winning a war, I call moral consciousness. I'm proud of those who stopped that war.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
I agree with your first and last statements.
But while a war IS being fought, the military, not the politicians should decide how that war is conducted. It is the politicians' decision to send troops to war. After that, they should leave the waging of that war to the professionals, not micro-manage and obstruct - as they did in Vietnam. The politicians should also decide when a war should end, and their ai should be either to win, or to gain an advantage that makes the other side more amenable to peace talks. Vietnam and Afghanistan went on for years after it was obvious that the objectives were impossible. How many good people died before the politicians actually agreed with the commanders on the ground?
Either a war is essential, or if it is not? It should never have been started. As Churchill said - "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
This is so true. I've read Churchill's magnum opus on WWII, and I was surprised to see how much politics influenced the decision where to send troops, materiel, etc., but at the same time it was obvious that Churchill never lost sight of the need to destroy the Axis powers totally, even as concessions were made to keep others - especially the Russians - happy and in the war.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Churchill's attitude to the Russians was always nuanced. As he said in the House of Commmons - if Hitler declared war on the Devil, I would manage a complimentary remark about His Satanic Majesty.
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
Yeah, Churchill doesn't have much good to say about Stalin in the book, but he does credit him for staying in the war and not making a separate peace with Hitler. A very different take on Churchill was in "Meeting at Potsdam," where the author didn't have a very favorable view of his mettle in standing up to Stalin.
BTW, my copy of "Their Finest Hour" is signed by the great man's great-grandson (who lives in Houston now).
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
By Potsdam, Britain was very much a junior partner to America. Without the US's backing, which Churchill didn't have, his options were very limited.
The Arctic convoys, delivered at great expense in men, material and ship losses, provided the USSR with the means to attack Germany. While the Russians had masses of tanks, they didn't have the supply chain to keep them in the field. US (and British) trucks were needed. Despite Russia's stock of oil, they didn't have the equipment to extract more, nor the means to transport it. American oil fuelled the Russian advances.
