All Things Russia & Ukraine

[jhu72]

Interesting development in Romania.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

[NattyBohChamps04]

The Economist: Russia’s vast stocks of Soviet-era weaponry are running out

"It may have to scale back its offensive in Ukraine"

Article (Jul 16th 2024):

For a long time, it seemed that a war of attrition between Ukraine and a Russia with five times its population could only end one way. But the much-vaunted Russian offensive against Kharkiv in the north that started in May is fizzling out. Its advances elsewhere along the line, especially in the Donbas region, have been both strategically trivial and achieved only at huge cost. The question now is less whether Ukraine can stay in the fight and more how long can Russia maintain its current tempo of operations.

The key issue is not manpower. Russia seems able to go on finding another 25,000 or so soldiers each month to maintain numbers at the front of around 470,000, although it is paying more for them. Production of missiles to strike Ukrainian infrastructure is also surging. But for all the talk about Russia having become a war economy, with some 8% of its gdp devoted to military spending, it is able to replace its staggering losses of tanks, armoured infantry vehicles and artillery only by drawing out of storage and refurbishing stocks built up in the Soviet era. Huge though these stocks are, they are not infinite.

According to most intelligence estimates, after the first two years of the war Russia had lost about 3,000 tanks and 5,000 other armoured vehicles. Oryx, a Dutch open-source intelligence site, puts the number of Russian tank losses for which it has either photo or videographic evidence currently at 3,235, but suggests the actual number is “significantly higher”.

Aleksandr Golts, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, says that Vladimir Putin has the old Politburo to thank for the huge stockpiles of weapons that were built up during the cold war. He says that Soviet leaders knew that Western military kit was much more advanced than their own, so they opted for mass, churning out thousands of armoured vehicles in peacetime in case of war. Before its demise, says Mr Golts, the Soviet Union had as many armoured vehicles as the rest of the world put together.

When the then defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, boasted in December 2023 that 1,530 tanks had been delivered in the course of the year, he omitted to say that nearly 85% of them, according to an assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think-tank, were not new tanks but old ones (mainly t-72s, also t-62s and even some t-55s dating from just after the second world war) that had been taken out of storage and given a wash and brush-up.

Since the invasion, about 175 reasonably modern t-90m tanks have been sent to the front line. The iiss estimates that annual production this year could be approaching 90. However, Michael Gjerstad, an analyst with the iiss, argues that most of the t-90ms are actually upgrades of older t-90as. As those numbers dwindle, production of newly built t-90ms this year might be no more than 28. Pavel Luzin, an expert on Russian military capacity at the Washington-based Centre for European Policy Analysis, reckons that Russia can build only 30 brand-new tanks a year. When the Ukrainians captured a supposedly new t-90m last year, they found that its gun was produced in 1992.

Mr Luzin reckons that Russia’s ability to build new tanks or infantry fighting vehicles, or even to refurbish old ones, is hampered by the difficulty of getting components. Stores of components for tank production that before the war were intended for use in 2025 have already been raided, while crucial equipment, such as fuel-heaters for diesel engines, high-voltage electrical systems and infrared thermal imaging to identify targets, were all previously imported from Europe and their sale is now blocked by sanctions. The lack of high-quality ball bearings is also a constraint. Chinese alternatives are sometimes available, but are said not to meet former quality standards.

Furthermore, the old Soviet armaments supply chain no longer exists. Ukraine, Georgia and East Germany were all important centres of weapons and components manufacture. Ironically, Kharkiv was the main producer of turrets for t-72 tanks. The number of workers in the military-industrial complex has also fallen dramatically, says Mr Luzin, from about 10m to 2m, without any offsetting step-change in automation.

Another major concern is artillery-barrel production. For now, with the help of North Korea, Russia appears to have enough shells, probably about 3m this year—sufficient to outgun the Ukrainians until recently by at least 5:1 and sometimes by much more. But the downside of such high rates of fire has been the wear and tear on barrels. In some highly contested areas, the barrels of howitzers need replacing after only a few months.

Yet, says Mr Luzin, there are only two factories that have the sophisticated Austrian-made rotary forging machines (the last one was imported in 2017) needed to make the barrels. They can each produce only around 100 barrels a year, compared with the thousands needed. Russia has never made its own forging machines; they imported them from America in the 1930s and looted them from Germany after the war.

The solution has been to cannibalise the barrels from old towed artillery and fit them to self-propelled howitzers. Richard Vereker, an open-source analyst, thinks that by the start of this year about 4,800 barrels had been swapped out. How long the Russians can carry on doing this depends on the condition of the 7,000 or so that may be left. Mr Gjerstad says that with multi-launch rocket systems, such as the tos-1a, eking out barrel life has already meant much shorter bursts of fire.

But the biggest emerging problem is with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, which are still crucial to any offensive ground operations at scale. Although the iiss estimated that in February of this year Russia may have had about 3,200 tanks in storage to draw on, Mr Gjerstad says up to 70% of them “have not moved an inch since the beginning of the war”. A large proportion of the t-72s have been stored uncovered since the early 1990s and are probably in very poor condition. Both Mr Golts and Mr Luzin reckon that at current rates of attrition, Russian tank and infantry vehicle refurbishment from storage will have reached a “critical point of exhaustion” by the second half of next year.

Unless something changes, before the end of this year Russian forces may have to adjust their posture to one that is much more defensive, says Mr Gjerstad. It could even become apparent before the end of summer. Expect Mr Putin’s interest in agreeing a temporary ceasefire to increase. ■

Chart attached to article: https://imgur.com/kSakEKp

They're trying to get through the election at the least...

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

[dislaxxic]

MANUFACTURED HORSESHIRT: PAUL MANAFORT RETURNS TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

...Trump is running not just as someone who explicitly wants to be a Dictator from Day One, someone who supports all the same policies as a Project that targets divorce and birth control along with the very idea of civil service.

He is running with Russian help on a plan to give Russia what it wants, starting, but not ending, with Ukraine on a silver platter.

Trump, and the guy Trump pardoned for lying about what happened with Russia in 2016, are simply picking up where things left off.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

Yup, you didn't understand the objection, "dismissed it", and you have also consistently referred to "heritage" of protestors against removal of statues, changing names etc. You did suggest a constructive response to base names, "if it had to be done".

[old salt]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

Yup, you didn't understand the objection, "dismissed it", and you have also consistently referred to "heritage" of protestors against removal of statues, changing names etc. You did suggest a constructive response to base names, "if it had to be done".

It was the type of issue that makes people in the military roll their eyes & wish that the politicians would expend their energy on things that actually matter & enable them to better accomplish their mission, or make things better for them.

[cradleandshoot]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

Yup, you didn't understand the objection, "dismissed it", and you have also consistently referred to "heritage" of protestors against removal of statues, changing names etc. You did suggest a constructive response to base names, "if it had to be done".

It was the type of issue that makes people in the military roll their eyes & wish that the politicians would expend their energy on things that actually matter & enable them to better accomplish their mission, or make things better for them.

A good observation regarding all of the name changes. They give some folks a warm and fuzzy feeling of great accomplishment. The truth is it doesn't do a damn thing to turn out better soldiers. Better and more qualified soldiers is the result of better training and better equipment.

[MDlaxfan76]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

Yup, you didn't understand the objection, "dismissed it", and you have also consistently referred to "heritage" of protestors against removal of statues, changing names etc. You did suggest a constructive response to base names, "if it had to be done".

It was the type of issue that makes people in the military roll their eyes & wish that the politicians would expend their energy on things that actually matter & enable them to better accomplish their mission, or make things better for them.

Undoubtedly some people roll their eyes.
Others feel differently.

However, I doubt anyone doesn't think that focus on "things that... enable them to better accomplish their mission" is and should be a top priority. Only the troglodytes think that someone has a different, superseding priority when they "make things better for them" by clearly addressing symbols of Jim Crow racism.

[cradleandshoot]

And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.

Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.

FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,

"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.

c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

My first quote by you was in 2018.

Milley's quote, if read with an open mind, made darn clear why he considered it a national security matter.
Perhaps you don't understand the importance of morale?
Do we celebrate traitors in our military, or those who act with honor in defense of our country?

But if one doesn't consider them to be traitors, as does Milley, I can understand why one wouldn't see the impact on morale in a diverse military.

That post 2021. Look again. 2018 was when I joined LF.
c&s, Colin Powell & I agreed that most soldiers didn't know (or care) who Ft Benning was named after.

Here ya go. Carville brought it up on Brian William's show.

My fellows soldiers were white, black, Puerto Rican, Navajo Indian, Mexican and even my good friend from Guam. If the politically correct thing is for Bragg to have a new name
I know what that name should be. Until the the day I die, it will always be Ft Bragg.

It would be interesting to know if your fellow black soldiers have the same opinion.

Not that I would expect them to feel comfortable being honest about it to us white folks.

You ask a good question. I was at Bragg from !979 to 1982. To be perfectly honest I do not ever remember the topic of who Ft Bragg was named after was ever brought up.

It's my experience that most service members are oblivious to the origins of the name of their ship or post.
Instead, they associate the name with the missions of the units based there, their history & their exploits.

James Carville recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore', for the black, native son, 3 star who brought order to NOLA during Katrina.
If they can come up with namesakes that appropriate for the other 9 Forts, it could be a good thing.
Since Petraeus brought it up, I wonder which one he expects to be named for him.

It was an issue as far back as 2015
https://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/
& resurfaced in 2017.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/0 ... es/140326/
We discussed the issue on LP, which is where I first made a suggestion about what to rename the bases.

Thanks, I do now remember this post, just didn't find it when looking on FL. My recollection remains that you were generally dismissive of the importance felt by those who actually did bother to know the "origins" of these names. Your post above was such, albeit you allowed as to how it could be a good thing they could find 9 other "namesakes" like Gen Honore...then made a crack about Petraeus for bringing it up...

Did you ever say it was a valuable thing to do for morale?
Did you make such an argument?
Or just dismiss it as 'woke', and make fun of those who thought it important enough to bother to do?

BTW, my understanding of Powell's comment was that how he was treated, as a black man in the South rather than as a professional soldier on behalf of the United States, was more important than the names themselves...they were merely symbols of the very real, ugly racism he faced beyond the base.

I think he was a bit embarrassed that when he had the authority, he hadn't addressed it.

Powell later agreed that changing the base names is a constructive part of sending a more clear message to those racists, combatting such racism, as well as sending a message to the soldiers about such. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5080 ... nfederate/

The best part of that article: “President Trump on Sunday said he “might” veto a defense spending bill because it includes a provision to remove the names of Confederate leaders from Army bases.
“I might,” Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace during an interview that aired Sunday morning. “Yeah, I might.””

Classic. His supporters cheered.

And apologists just stayed mute.
I don't see Salty objecting to Trump's position..

Here's some of our discussion on this topic, Salty.

I dIsmissed it early on as something that did not matter to the troops.
I included what Colin Powell said as an example. FTR -- I still feel that way.
I did not object to it being done. I just didn't think it was a burning issue.
If it had to be done, I proposed what I thought was the appropriate way to do it.

Yup, you didn't understand the objection, "dismissed it", and you have also consistently referred to "heritage" of protestors against removal of statues, changing names etc. You did suggest a constructive response to base names, "if it had to be done".

It was the type of issue that makes people in the military roll their eyes & wish that the politicians would expend their energy on things that actually matter & enable them to better accomplish their mission, or make things better for them.

A good observation regarding all of the name changes. They give some folks a warm and fuzzy feeling of great accomplishment. The truth is it doesn't do a damn thing to turn out better soldiers. Better and more qualified soldiers is the result of better training and better equipment.

So at the end of the day paratroopers earning their jump wings at Ft Moore ( which is an appropriate and honorable name ) are better paratroopers than I was when I earned my jump wings at Ft Benning? You half got it half right... symbolism over substance. The main mission of Ft Moore is to train infantry soldiers to be ready to fight if need be. That is the only thing that is relevant and important. It was in basic training and AIT that we learned what it takes to be a soldier.

[old salt]

USAF B-52's delpoyed to Romania.
https://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Article-D ... force-24-4
Flight over the Barents Sea (to be intercepted by Russian fighters) is a significant diversion from a direct flight route from LA to Romania.
https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=BAD-CND
Wag the dog ?

[Kismet]

USAF B-52's delpoyed to Romania.
https://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Article-D ... force-24-4
Flight over the Barents Sea (to be intercepted by Russian fighters) is a significant diversion from a direct flight route from LA to Romania.
https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=BAD-CND
Wag the dog ?

and then there's this reported tonight

"NORAD intercepted two Russian & two Chinese bombers flying near Alaska on Wednesday in what appears to be the first time the two countries have been intercepted while operating together."

[old salt]

We are playing a dangerous game. We're both well aware of each other's capabilities. This accomplishes nothing on our behalf.

Deploying 2 B-52's to Romania for a short term NATO exercise can be rationalized.
At this time, diverting from their shortest transit route to probe Russia's air defenses along NATO's newly extended NE flank is unnecessarily provocative & not worth any counter-intel we might gain about their air defense capability in that region that we don't already have, IMHO.
We're not likely to launch unescorted B-52 ALCM strikes from that close without first degrading Russia's air defenses in that sector.

[old salt]

from Defense One daily brief :

Industry
The U.S. doesn’t have enough rocket makers to keep up with the demand for new and replacement missiles, officials with RTX said at Farnborough. The maker of AMRAAM, Patriot, and other missiles is hunting for at least a third supplier, officials said at Farnborough. Defense One's Audrey Decker has more.

Rheinmetall has officially begun developing its new ammunition factory inside Ukraine, the German arms maker announced this week. The total value for the deal is in the “low three-digit million euro range,” and is scheduled to be completed “within a few years,” according to Rheinmetall.

Forecast: “The intention is to start the ammunition production in the Ukraine within 24 months,” the German firm said Tuesday.

Reminder: Just last month, Rheinmetall opened a repair center for its Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles transferred to Kyiv’s military. Defense One’s Sam Skove elaborated on that development, here.

By the way: Rheinmetall “more than doubled operating profit in the second quarter” of 2024, Reuters reported Wednesday from Berlin. Much of that is “due to orders from the German army using funds from a 100-billion-euro special fund created after the invasion of Ukraine to bolster the country's armed forces,” Reuters writes.

The second quarter, in numbers: “Operating earnings in April-June rose 111% year-on-year to 271 million euros ($293 million) beating expectations for 226 million, while the operating profit margin rose to 12.1%, above the consensus for 11.0%, based on the preliminary numbers.” More here.

Signs of fatigue in Ukraine: The percentage of people willing to give up some invaded territory in order to stop the war with Russia is growing, from 10% last year to now around 32%, according to a survey conducted in May and published this week by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

Worth noting: 55% of Ukrainians do not want to give Russia any territory in exchange for a quick end to the invasion. But that number was 84% at this point last year. Details, here.

Making it rain in Moscow: Residents of Russia’s capital city can now get a $22,000 signing bonus for joining the military, Latvia-based Meduza reported Tuesday. For the locals, that amounts to 1.9 million rubles, which comes to about $21,777. According to city officials, “The total amount of payments to a contract serviceman (taking into account monthly salary and Moscow and federal support measures) will exceed 5.2 million rubles ($59,599) for the first year of service.”

For some perspective, one journalist who worked at the Moscow Times back in 2014 made $13,000 a year. “And that was a good salary for Moscow,” he said.

Ukraine’s top diplomat is in China for talks with officials, the state-run newspaper China People’s Daily reported Tuesday. With his visit to the southern city of Guangzhou, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kubeba is now the highest-ranking Ukrainian to visit China since Russia launched its full-scale invasion more than two years ago.

“I am convinced that a just peace in Ukraine is in China’s strategic interests, and China’s role as a global force for peace is important,” said Kuleba in his opening remarks. The Associated Press and Reuters have a bit more.

The Brits’ new Army chief says the country must be ready to fight a war within three years, the BBC reported Tuesday after Gen. Sir Roland Walker’s first public speech as Chief of the General Staff, a role he assumed in June.

Atop his list of concerns: Russia. “It doesn’t matter how [the Ukraine invasion] ends,” Walker said Tuesday at the Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference. “I think Russia will emerge from it probably weaker objectively – or absolutely – but still very, very dangerous and wanting some form of retribution for what we have done to help Ukraine,” he warned.

“He also warned that China was intent on retaking Taiwan, and Iran was likely to pursue nuclear weapons,” the BBC reports. More, here.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Ukraine presses offensive inside Russia as Moscow scrambles to respond

I think we're at day 800+ of the 3 day special military operation?

Happy for the small victories. Hoping for larger victories.

[NattyBohChamps04]

All Quiet on the Western Front?

Ukrainian troops now up to 30km inside Russia, Moscow says

Historically this land and people were Ukrainian around ~1000 years ago. Some people around here should be celebrating the reunion with the historic motherland.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ukraine presses offensive inside Russia as Moscow scrambles to respond

I think we're at day 800+ of the 3 day special military operation?

Happy for the small victories. Hoping for larger victories.

800+ days!! Must be a lot of Nazis in Ukraine

[kramerica.inc]

Ukraine blows up key bridges and says aim is to carve out a buffer zone inside Russia

NBC News Yuliya Talmazan
August 19, 2024 at 8:26 AM

Ukraine appeared to have blown up a number of key bridges in the Kursk region over the weekend as its troops pressed on with a daring incursion into Russia that Kyiv now says was aimed at creating a buffer zone to stop attacks across the border.

Ukraine’s Air Force reported Sunday that a second bridge was destroyed in the Kursk region, saying it “deprives the enemy of its logistical capabilities” and “significantly affects the course of hostilities.”

“Minus one more bridge,” the country’s air force chief, Lt. Gen. Mykola Oleshchuk, said sharing a video of what appears to be a strike on one of ends of the span.

NBC News was able to geolocate the video to the village of Zvannoye on the Seim River in the Kursk region. That comes after Oleshchuk released a video Friday of an airstrike that cut a bridge in two.

Acting Kursk Gov. Alexei Smirnov confirmed the bridge attack in a post on his Telegram channel.

“As a result of an attack from Ukraine, a road bridge across the Seim River in the Glushkovsky district was destroyed,” he said Friday.

Destroying the bridges over the Seim River could be a crucial step in disrupting supply lines to Russian forces trying to stop the Ukrainian advance in Kursk.

Ukrainian strike on a bridge over the Seym river in the Kursk region (Planet Labs PBC via Reuters)
A satellite image shows a bridge collapsed over the Seim River on Saturday near the town of Glushkovo.
A satellite image shows a strategic bridge over the Seym River that has been destroyed, in Zvannoe (Planet Labs PBC via Reuters)
Another satellite image shows a different bridge over the Seim River that has been blown up in Zvannoe, Kursk on Sunday.
Kyiv says its forces are still advancing, after claiming to have seized more than 440 square miles of Russian territory in the surprise assault launched two weeks ago that has shaken up the dynamics of the war and posed a new challenge to the Kremlin.

It appears to have taken Russia completely off guard after months focused on a push in Ukraine’s east and the rest of the 600-mile frontline.

Russia's defense ministry said its forces seized another settlement in the embattled Donetsk region Monday, where military observers have raised the alarm over Ukraine's position in key towns like Pokrovsk and Toretsk.

Local authorities there launched the mandatory evacuation of families with children from Pokrovsk on Monday.

Ukrainian officials had hinted at a number of motivations for the surprise offensive, including shifting Russian attention from the east, but on Sunday President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed what he said was the main goal of the operation in Kursk.

“It is now our primary task in defensive operations overall: to destroy as much Russian war potential as possible and conduct maximum counteroffensive actions,” Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. “This includes creating a buffer zone on the aggressor’s territory — our operation in the Kursk region.”

The comment was his first official explanation for the operation, after days of speculation by military analysts about what objectives Ukraine might be pursuing in its risky assault.


The idea of creating a “buffer zone” was first voiced by Russian President Vladimir Putin after Moscow launched its own offensive on Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region in May, meant to protect the very border regions Ukraine has since swept into.

Instead, it now appears to be Zelenskyy who is pursuing a “buffer zone” to prevent Russian attacks on Ukrainian towns and villages across the border.

Putin has vowed to “squeeze out” the Ukrainians but faced growing questions over his response to the crisis. He is visiting Azerbaijan for a two-day state visit to discuss “strategic partnership and allied relations” between the two countries, according to the Kremlin, in a likely effort to project an image of stability.

For months before Ukraine's surprise offensive, the Kremlin had pushed for peace talks while it held the battlefield initiative.

But on Monday, presidential aide Yuri Ushakov ruled out negotiations for the time being after what he called Kyiv's “gamble” in Kursk, state news agency Tass reported. Moscow’s foreign ministry on Sunday denied a Washington Post report that that the Kursk attack had derailed indirect talks with Kyiv for a landmark deal to halt strikes on critical infrastructure.

Last week, Ukrainian forces made a surprise incursion into Russia's Kursk region, where Ukraine says it has captured hundreds of enemy soldiers and where Russia has been forced to evacuate more than 130,000 people. (Kostiantyn Liberov / Libkos via Getty Images)
Ukrainian soldiers patrol the streets of Sudzha, a key town now under Kyiv's control in Russia's Kursk region.
Zelenskyy, emboldened by the advances on Russian territory, also doled out criticism for his Western partners.

“There is a need for faster delivery of supplies from our partners,” he said. “We strongly ask for this. There are no vacations in war. Decisions are needed, as is timely logistics for the announced aid packages. I especially address this to the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.”

A spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told NBC News the U.K.’s support for Ukraine is “unwavering,” with further lethal aid accelerated for Kyiv.

[old salt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... n-support/

Germany is wobbling on Ukraine — and the rest of Europe is watching
Europe has mostly held fast in supporting Ukraine. Now, cracks are showing.

by Lee Hockstader, August 27, 2024 at 6:00 a.m.

LEIPZIG, Germany — This broad-minded university town in eastern Germany was the cradle of a “peaceful revolution” that toppled the Berlin Wall and helped write the Cold War’s final chapter. But on the same streets where throngs in 1989 condemned their communist masters in the former East Germany, today’s demonstrators have denounced Western aid for Ukraine and demanded that the United States “go home.”

That’s among the worrying signs that Germany, Europe’s pivotal country and the No. 2 Western donor to Kyiv after the United States, is going wobbly at the very moment Europe needs to redouble its support.

Virtually every senior European official, diplomat and security expert I’ve spoken with over the past year has intoned the same mantra: Whether or not Donald Trump wins a second term and guts U.S. aid for Kyiv, Europe must do more. Because even a Democratic administration would continue elevating Washington’s security interests in Asia over Europe.

But cracks are now unmistakable in what so far has been that broad consensus — most visibly in Germany.

Since Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Berlin’s bilateral help for Ukraine has exceeded $16 billion, not counting its share of European Union funding or a further $30 billion spent supporting more than 1 million Ukrainian refugees who have fled to Germany. It has been the linchpin of European funding, which has exceeded total U.S. support by tens of billions of dollars, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

But reports emerged this month that Germany’s powerful finance minister, Christian Lindner, suggested Berlin would freeze new military aid for Ukraine, even after the government had slashed scheduled 2025 support for Kyiv by nearly half, to roughly $4.4 billion.

That news will be read in Moscow as vindication of Putin’s policy of strategic patience, which rests on the assumption that, sooner or later, the West will wilt. Ditto for deepening doubts that Washington will maintain its current aid gusher, averaging about $3.6 billion monthly in delivered and planned funding for Kyiv since the war’s outset.

Lindner’s motives are a matter of debate. He is a deficit hawk and the champion of Germany’s draconian limit on debt, which is enshrined in its constitution.

But his party, the smallest of three in Germany’s unpopular coalition government, is also facing oblivion in next year’s federal elections. He might be seeking a survival strategy amid signs that German backing for Ukraine is slipping.

Polling ahead of parliamentary elections in three eastern states next month, including here in Saxony, where Leipzig is the biggest city, suggests that populist, pro-Russian parties on the extreme right and left are on course to collect 40 to 50 percent of the vote.

They have campaigned against immigration and aid to Ukraine, in the latter case parroting Kremlin propaganda. And they have played on working-class grievances, suggesting that subsidizing Ukrainian refugees saps funding for education and Germany’s own social safety net.

German states don’t set foreign policy; the federal government does. And the five former East German states, where hostility toward funding Ukraine runs deep, make up just 12 percent of Germany’s 85 million people.

Still, virulently anti-Ukraine parties are surging in the east, including the neo-fascist Alternative for Germany, which is at or near the top of polls ahead of the three states’ elections. Another Russophile party, founded in January and rising in the polls, is led by a firebrand former communist who takes credit for the government’s retreat on funding Ukraine.

That’s a stretch. But it’s naive to think Germany’s mainstream parties, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s traditionally peacenik Social Democrats, aren’t nervous.

The jitters might spread to the Christian Democrats, former chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative party, which, now in opposition, holds a commanding lead in national polls ahead of next year’s federal elections. Its leader, Friedrich Merz, hopes to replace Scholz as chancellor and is staunchly pro-Ukraine — but lately doesn’t talk about it much lest he antagonize voters in the east.

“I think that’s the right approach at the moment,” Andreas Nowak, a Christian Democrat official in Leipzig, told me. “You can’t win a federal election in Germany only in the western states.”

Germany suffers from an anemic economy, an aging population and — remember that debt limit — paltry public investment. The result is unreliable trains, failing schools and too little notable homegrown high tech. That has fueled anger with the government, as have spiking levels of immigration.

But Germany remains Europe’s powerhouse by dint of its size and manufacturing muscle. Scholz leveraged his leadership after Putin unleashed his battalions in Ukraine, calling the invasion an era-defining challenge and pumping money into defense after decades of atrophy.

The chancellor has been too timid at times in sending Ukraine some powerful weapons, but for the most part, Germany’s pro-Kyiv center has held. If it goes squishy now, that will send a terrible signal to the rest of Europe — and to Putin.

The latest from afan's Eurosocialist paradise.
Germany suffers from an anemic economy, an aging population and — remember that debt limit — paltry public investment. The result is unreliable trains, failing schools and too little notable homegrown high tech. That has fueled anger with the government, as have spiking levels of immigration.

[a fan]

The latest from afan's Eurosocialist paradise.
Germany suffers from an anemic economy, an aging population and — remember that debt limit — paltry public investment. The result is unreliable trains, failing schools and too little notable homegrown high tech. That has fueled anger with the government, as have spiking levels of immigration.

Oh, you've convinced me. The reason you can't keep up intellectually is that you're right: the government and socialism sucks.

I received a private Uni. education, and, was trained at private vocational schools.

You, on the other hand were ENTIRELY educated by this government that you're certain is inferior, and can't do anything right.

Explains everything. Explains why don't know how to use a dictionary, or know that you're a card-carrying socialist. Explains why the Navy can't add and subtract, or do basic accounting that a HS dropout could manage.

When do we privatize the Navy and hand it over to Blackwater? Clearly the Navy sucks, and produces poorly trained, and shoddily educated employees. Blackwater will CLEARLY do better, and the Navy, as you put it, is "just getting in the way" of a far better privatized Naval fleet.

What was I thinking for arguing this brilliant point of yours? You win.