Yup, less than 25% of the Austrian legislature.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:22 am Austrian Freedom Party leaders walk out on Zelensky....https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/ ... 84032?s=20
... I think the number is actually about 17% for FPO. There is a second extreme right wing group with a similar ideology sitting at 11%, total ---> 28%. At least that is my understanding by looking at an Austrian political party wiki. No reason to expect it to be too different from US. Same forces are driving this scum on both sides of the Atlantic.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:44 pmYup, less than 25% of the Austrian legislature.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:22 am Austrian Freedom Party leaders walk out on Zelensky....https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/ ... 84032?s=20
The comments were right on..."Putin's money talking" etc.
I bet if we had these splinter parties in America, the "Freedom Party" analogue here would be a similar size cohort...Trumpist "America First" Party.
And yup, "White Christian Nationalist" ideology is the common theme.
Yup...including Putin's meddling.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:38 pm... I think the number is actually about 17% for FPO. There is a second extreme right wing group with a similar ideology sitting at 11%, total ---> 28%. At least that is my understanding by looking at an Austrian political party wiki. No reason to expect it to be too different from US. Same forces are driving this scum on both sides of the Atlantic.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:44 pmYup, less than 25% of the Austrian legislature.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:22 am Austrian Freedom Party leaders walk out on Zelensky....https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/ ... 84032?s=20
The comments were right on..."Putin's money talking" etc.
I bet if we had these splinter parties in America, the "Freedom Party" analogue here would be a similar size cohort...Trumpist "America First" Party.
And yup, "White Christian Nationalist" ideology is the common theme.
A whole lot of young men have already left Russia...I wonder whether the 147k is from those they know haven't left?CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:27 am March 30 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree setting out the routine spring conscription campaign, calling 147,000 citizens up for statutory military service, Tass news agency said on Thursday.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 023-03-30/
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:17 ama fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:02 amWouldn't surprise me if they did that.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:54 pmMaybe Sam Powers can next visit France & school them.a fan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:12 pmWhat a shocker, OS-----yet another poster understands my point. Gee, maybe I'm not ranting, and am simply correctly pointing out that Biden is doing the same "USA-A-ok" overseas propaganda BS that that last dozen Presidents have.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:58 pm
“Americans” don’t like the French because they pushed back on American Cultural Imperialism…… I stopped buying Lobster Rolls from a guy selling “American” Fries…..guy was so ignorant I decided I can’t give him my money.
Give me a magic wand. I'd shut down both USAid and the CIA and their overseas meddling if I could. I can't.
The only difference between you and I is that I understand the US has been telling others what to do since before i was born.
Wrong. I've always felt that way about regime change & nation building.No, you haven't. You supported keeping Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq....and S Korea. And Japan. And, and, and..... What do you think they're there for?
You recall me criticizing Obama for inspiring the Arab Spring with his Cairo speech & his other Olympian pronouncements.Sure do. You don't like it when Dems do this stuff. Everyone else? It's fine. Question: who said "Tear down this wall", and I don't even have to ask you whether you supported that or not. You did. You think "that's different". It ain't. Same American arrogance. You just LIKED it when Reagan did it, and are upset when Biden's team does the same. And that's fine----but that's not the same thing as condemning ALL USA arrogance, and sticking our nose in other country's business.
And you think it just started last month. You do you. Welcome to it.
Our leaders did what they thought they had to do to survive the Cold War.That's great. But again, that doesn't mean that they didn't do the above things That all changed in 1989No, it didn't. We kept right on telling other countries what to do, and plopped bases all over the Middle East. How'd that work out?. Then the GWOT happened.
...& yes I know you can look back & say what you would have to alter history. The wisdom of backward looking Mon a.m. QB's.I love how this works in you mind. When you hit our leaders for doing something in the past, it's wisdom....when I do it, it's Mon am QB'sing. Only Old Salt is allowed to comment here. If I dare comment, or dare to correct your laughable partisan nonsense...and dare to tell you that Biden is hardly to first American President to shove American values down another country's throat, you act like I kicked your dog....instead of simply saying "yeah, you're right", and moving the F on. All because your ego won't let you act like a grown up and let others participate on this forum. Calm the F down, own up when you're wrong, and move on. We'll get along just as we did in the Obama years, when you did that without any difficulty whatsoever.
That's great. When was the last time a war went well for us....no mistakes, and we got out cleanly?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:44 am I have no problem with the US getting the hell out of there. The manner how that was accomplished was a disorganized disaster that can't be questioned. When the Biden administration chose to enforce a strict time limit on that withdrawal that is when the chit show began. The withdrawal could have been accomplished in a timely orderly manner that didn't have to adhere to a strict schedule of leaving by such and such a date. The ensuing chaos among our forces and the Afghans in full fledged panic mode did not have to happen.
I've run out of readable colors to reply in detail, so I'll just say this :a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:36 pmold salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:17 ama fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:02 amWouldn't surprise me if they did that.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:54 pmMaybe Sam Powers can next visit France & school them.a fan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:12 pmWhat a shocker, OS-----yet another poster understands my point. Gee, maybe I'm not ranting, and am simply correctly pointing out that Biden is doing the same "USA-A-ok" overseas propaganda BS that that last dozen Presidents have.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:58 pm
“Americans” don’t like the French because they pushed back on American Cultural Imperialism…… I stopped buying Lobster Rolls from a guy selling “American” Fries…..guy was so ignorant I decided I can’t give him my money.
Give me a magic wand. I'd shut down both USAid and the CIA and their overseas meddling if I could. I can't.
The only difference between you and I is that I understand the US has been telling others what to do since before i was born.
Wrong. I've always felt that way about regime change & nation building.No, you haven't. You supported keeping Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq....and S Korea. And Japan. And, and, and..... What do you think they're there for?
You recall me criticizing Obama for inspiring the Arab Spring with his Cairo speech & his other Olympian pronouncements.Sure do. You don't like it when Dems do this stuff. Everyone else? It's fine. Question: who said "Tear down this wall", and I don't even have to ask you whether you supported that or not. You did. You think "that's different". It ain't. Same American arrogance. You just LIKED it when Reagan did it, and are upset when Biden's team does the same. And that's fine----but that's not the same thing as condemning ALL USA arrogance, and sticking our nose in other country's business.
And you think it just started last month. You do you. Welcome to it.
Our leaders did what they thought they had to do to survive the Cold War.That's great. But again, that doesn't mean that they didn't do the above things That all changed in 1989No, it didn't. We kept right on telling other countries what to do, and plopped bases all over the Middle East. How'd that work out?. Then the GWOT happened.
...& yes I know you can look back & say what you would have to alter history. The wisdom of backward looking Mon a.m. QB's.I love how this works in you mind. When you hit our leaders for doing something in the past, it's wisdom....when I do it, it's Mon am QB'sing. Only Old Salt is allowed to comment here. If I dare comment, or dare to correct your laughable partisan nonsense...and dare to tell you that Biden is hardly to first American President to shove American values down another country's throat, you act like I kicked your dog....instead of simply saying "yeah, you're right", and moving the F on. All because your ego won't let you act like a grown up and let others participate on this forum. Calm the F down, own up when you're wrong, and move on. We'll get along just as we did in the Obama years, when you did that without any difficulty whatsoever.
Agile Ukraine, Lumbering Russia
The Promise and Limits of Military Adaptation
By Margarita Konaev and Owen J. Daniels, March 28, 2023
During more than 13 months of war against one of the world’s largest armies, Ukraine’s military has continually stood out for one quality in particular: its ability to adapt. Over and over, Ukraine has nimbly responded to changing battlefield dynamics and exploited emerging technologies to capitalize on Russia’s mistakes. Despite their limited experience with advanced weapons technology, Ukrainian soldiers quickly graduated from point-and-shoot Javelin and Stinger missile systems to the more sophisticated High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which they have used to pummel Russian command centers, logistical assets, and ammunition depots. They have deployed military and commercial drones in increasingly creative ways. And although this is not the first war to play out on social media, the Ukrainians have been giving the world a master class in effective information operations in the digital age. Such is their record of technical and tactical versatility that Ukrainian forces continue to enjoy a sense of momentum, despite the fact that the frontlines have been largely frozen for months.
By contrast, Russian forces have shown limited openness to new tactics or new technologies. Hobbled by bad leadership and terrible morale, the Russian military was slow to recover from its disastrous attempt to seize Kyiv in February 2022 and has struggled to adjust its strategy or learn from its mistakes. This is despite having demonstrated considerable dexterity in its deployments in eastern Ukraine in 2014 and in Syria starting in 2015. In the current war, although Russian military leaders have made some adjustments to alleviate logistical problems and improve coordination on the ground, the Kremlin’s core strategy continues to rely largely on throwing more manpower and firepower at the enemy—a lumbering, high-cost approach that has hardly inspired confidence. Observing this performance, some Western experts have raised the possibility of exceedingly dire scenarios, including a doomed Russian spring offensive, a large-scale mutiny of troops, or even the collapse of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
In short, the extent to which each side has been able to adapt has become a key factor shaping the course of the war. For Western analysts, Ukraine’s nimble tactics offer crucial insights into the conflict, including how they may spur future shifts in the war. But as the frontlines have become increasingly hardened, it is also important to take into account the limits of adaptation. For Ukraine’s allies, it will be crucial to understand the particular ways that this process has contributed to Ukraine’s remarkable success but also to temper expectations about what it can achieve in the months to come.
KYIV’S QUICK-CHANGE ARTISTS
Ukraine’s capacity for adaptation has been especially impressive in light of its recent history. Underfunded, poorly trained, and crippled by corruption, the Ukrainian military failed to repel the Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas in 2014 and could not regain lost ground. Since then, however, the Ukrainian military has undergone major, albeit incomplete, reforms to professionalize its forces and modernize its military equipment. Those efforts paid off in 2022. Although Ukraine’s leadership was initially skeptical of intelligence from the United States and other international partners indicating that Russia was planning an assault on Kyiv, the Ukrainian military put contingency plans into place in the months leading up to the invasion, and despite being caught off guard by the scale of the offensive, Ukrainian forces quickly recovered from Russia’s attempted “shock and awe” campaign. Then, in April 2022, when Russia shifted the war to the Donbas, where the open terrain and shorter resupply lines seemed more favorable to Moscow, Ukrainian forces were able to evolve, shifting away from the asymmetric, insurgency-style tactics that helped them defend Kyiv and toward those suited for fighting a large-scale conventional war. By late summer, Ukraine was rapidly regaining lost territory.
Ukraine’s rapid ability to integrate new technology into its operations has also been striking. As dozens of countries began sending high-tech Western weapons and equipment to Ukraine, some reports from the frontlines indicated that Ukrainian fighters lacked the training and experience to use them and that the Ukrainian military in general was struggling with the logistics and maintenance demands of so many different systems. Yet despite these challenges, Ukrainian soldiers have quickly adapted to sophisticated foreign weapons, ammunition, and materiel. In late August and throughout September, Ukraine’s effective use of HIMARS—the advanced mobile rocket launchers that Washington began delivering in June 2022—helped push the Russians out of Kharkiv and parts of Kherson. Ukrainian forces have also become adept at using deception to protect HIMARS from Russian artillery and air force attacks—for example, building wooden replicas of the system as decoys and keeping HIMARS operators’ roles and locations highly secret. U.S. military trainers have acknowledged how quickly Ukrainian soldiers learned to operate advanced Western systems, including the Patriot missile systems that the United States has announced it will deploy to Ukraine.
Ukraine has used AI to help capture Russian communications.
Ukrainian forces have also showcased their innovative and experimental thinking in their use of drones. As the war has increasingly been dominated by artillery and missile exchanges in recent months, Ukrainian units have integrated drone operating teams with their artillery to improve the accuracy of nonprecision strikes as well as to help with targeting in real time and collecting targets for future attacks. Ukrainian forces have equipped large Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones with laser-guided missiles to supplement their reconnaissance capabilities. They have also deployed small reconnaissance drones, such as the Chinese-made Mavics, and even jury-rigged some of them to be able to drop small antipersonnel grenades.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has relentlessly appealed to Western governments to provide military aid, the Ukrainian leadership has also recognized the value of direct assistance from international manufacturers of advanced technology. Immediately after the Russian invasion, through a direct appeal to Elon Musk on Twitter, the Ukrainian government was able to secure access to SpaceX’s Starlink satellite Internet system and terminals, which have kept the military’s communications networks intact even as Russia has repeatedly targeted the country’s communications infrastructure. Many other companies, including Microsoft, Palantir, Planet, Capella Space, and Maxar Technologies, have also worked through Western intermediaries or directly with Kyiv to provide data, equipment, and various technological resources for the war effort. In April 2022, Wired reported that Primer, a U.S. company specializing in providing artificial intelligence (AI) to intelligence analysts, had shared machine-learning technology with Ukraine. According to the company, its AI algorithms were being used by Ukrainian forces to automatically capture, transcribe, translate, and analyze Russian military communications that were transmitted on unsecure channels and intercepted.
Of course, official Ukrainian reports describing the country’s use of new technologies must be scrutinized carefully. Kyiv has a clear incentive to emphasize the effect of advanced Western systems on its war effort in order to encourage the United States and its European partners to continue such support. From open-source reporting, it can also be difficult to assess whether Ukraine has deployed these innovative technologies widely or only on a few occasions. Nonetheless, it is clear that, unlike its enemy, Ukraine has been able to learn from and respond to unexpected and shifting battlefield conditions.
MOSCOW’S LOST INNOVATIONS
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year was not the first time that Moscow has vastly underestimated the capabilities and resolve of an adversary. In both its first war in Chechnya in the 1990s and its war with Georgia in 2008, Russia was plagued by significant structural and organizational failures, including in preparation, planning, and information sharing. Over the past decade, however, the Russian government has pursued an extensive and expensive military modernization effort. And during more recent deployments to Syria and eastern Ukraine the Russian military appeared far more adept at integrating emerging technologies and new concepts into its operations.
Indeed, Russia’s brutal intervention to support the Assad regime in Syria has been described as a “proving ground” for Russia’s military reforms. According to Russian government sources, Russia tested some 600 new weapons and other kinds of military equipment during its intervention in Syria, including 200 that officials have described as “next generation.” For instance, although Russia had a relatively limited fleet of reconnaissance drones at the beginning of its Syrian campaign, it ramped up production and deployment after 2015, and by 2018, it was able to deploy some 60–70 drones a day in a variety of battlefield situations. Some of the drones were used to create a theater-wide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance network that could relay targeting information and direct airstrikes.
Russia’s intervention in Syria also allowed its military to experiment with integrating human and machine warfare, including the use of robots and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) alongside regular forces. Russia tested a variety of such technologies, such as the small Scarab UGV, which can be used for clearing mines and gaining access into underground facilities, and the Uran-6, a larger remote-controlled vehicle that also has mine-clearing capabilities. These experiments did not always go smoothly: in its first test in an urban combat mission, a larger UGV, the Uran-9, had serious problems with communications, navigation, and hitting moving targets. But these forays provided valuable real-world insight into how autonomous and AI-enabled systems could assist soldiers on the battlefield, and they have often been cited by Russian military analysts as showing the promise of AI.
Russia experimented with unmanned robots in the Syrian War.
In both Syria and eastern Ukraine, the Russian military was also able to use its modernized electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt enemy communications. So frequent was Russian interference with cellular, radio communications, drone, and GPS signals in Syria that the head of U.S. Special Operations Command described the war as “the most aggressive electronic warfare environment on the planet.” And during the war in the Donbas in 2015, General Ben Hodges, then the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, described how Russian electronic warfare “completely shut down” Ukrainian communications and effectively grounded their drones. U.S. military analysts have also noted that in at least one incident during the fighting in the Donbas, Russian forces were able to use intercepted cellphone signals to target Ukrainian soldiers with artillery strikes.
Yet very little of this innovation has been apparent in Russia’s war in Ukraine. Over the past year, Moscow has largely given up on the battlefield experimentation and learning that defined its campaigns in Syria and eastern Ukraine. Despite having a broad range of robotic and autonomous technologies in different stages of development, the Russian military has seemed unwilling or unable to field such systems in the current war. On occasion, open-source analysts have identified new high-tech weapons being deployed by Russia, including the KUB-BLA loitering munition, which is designed to use AI to identify targets. But there is little evidence of their use, and some observers have expressed doubts about such reports. Russian forces have also shown little success with electronic warfare and cyber-operations, areas in which they were believed to hold an advantage.
As the war has unfolded, Russia has made some adjustments. Early on, it shifted its resources to eastern Ukraine after being rebuffed at Kyiv and focused on the more limited objective of “liberating” the Donbas. Having taken a beating from Ukraine’s HIMARS for months, Russian forces finally began dispersing their command-and-control nodes and moving logistics and weapons depots out of the weapons’ 80-mile range. Faced with severe shortages of manpower and ammunition, Russia has also looked to foreign partners for assistance—buying Iranian and Chinese drones and, according to U.S. intelligence reports, even preparing to buy rockets and artillery shells from North Korea. Overall, however, Russian forces appear to have entirely lost the insights they gained in Syria about the value of flexibility.
MARGINS OF RETURN
For over a year now, Kyiv’s extraordinary capacity for adaptation has kept its military in the fight. Equally important, the country has inspired confidence among its Western allies that its forces can continue using new weapons and technologies to take advantage of Russia’s mistakes, regain territory, and maintain high levels of motivation and capability. Moscow’s military performance, meanwhile, has inspired no one. Confronted with major losses of both equipment and troops, the Russian military has been under enormous pressure to retain whatever combat effectiveness it can and has had little spare capacity for experimenting with new technologies. But how significant are these contrasting performances to the ultimate direction of the conflict itself?
The dynamics of the war in the coming months will likely hinge on Russia’s unfolding spring offensive. Experts will debate whether the Russian leadership is aiming for a large-scale assault to take new territory or a more modest attempt to consolidate gains, and there will doubtless be continued scrutiny of the low morale and poor quality of the Russian forces. At this point, however, with both sides increasingly dug in along fairly stable frontlines, larger shifts in the war are unlikely to play out in a 24-hour news cycle. Moreover, the Russian military can continue fighting poorly for a long time—in fact, it has a long history of doing just that. Further still, the Kremlin, for some months now, has focused on reorienting the Russian economy and society toward a long war and preparing to outlast Western financial and material support for Ukraine. And although Western analysts and observers may be tempted to conclude that Ukrainian forces’ knack for adaptation will give them an edge in the long term, it is important to recognize that they are facing a far larger army led by a regime that has demonstrated a continued willingness to sustain enormous losses.
The Ukrainian military’s skill at integrating advanced weapons and new technologies has continually surprised not only its adversary, but also Ukraine’s own partners and allies in the West. Yet new technology and weapons, no matter how sophisticated, are unlikely to prove decisive. In fact, it is difficult to say whether there can be a decisive end to a war like this—a prospect that seems unlikely for the near future.
You're saying that from the perspective if a US soldier. That's why YOU think our troops are there.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I've run out of readable colors to reply in detail, so I'll just say this :
Small residual forces in Afghanistan, Iraq (Kurdish area) & Syria (Kurdish area) were no longer there for nation building. They are/were there to prevent a repeat of 9-11. To prevent AQ/IS from reemerging to threaten the US & our allies again. Iraq is selfgoverning & Afghanistan was transitioning back to conditions based Taliban rule before our early withdrawal.
Again, all you're giving me is the perspective of a US soldier.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm The Afghan transition process could have continued while our small residual force presence continued to bolster the ASF & maintain our intel & anti-terrorism capability. In both cases, it was the continuation of a gradual drawdown from our invasions, occupations, & nation building. In both cases, politically induced premature withdrawal lead to collapse.
Never said that we could. Where I think we differ is that I believe that we can learn from past successes and failures....and apply these lessons to future foreign policy decisions. Whenever I do that on this forum, you react harshly. I'm trying to figure out why....I think we're talking past each other more often than not.
That's great. But understand that this is a complete change from 70 years of US foreign policy. Foreign policy that has led to both good and bad outcomes that we are still dealing with right now, and for years into the future.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I'm not out to change the world. I just want the US & our allies to survive & continue to enjoy our way of life, doing good around the world, where we can, without forcing other societies & governments to comply to our standards unless they are an existential threat to us.
Dude, I'm sorry, but Trump supporters don't know what the word "isolationist" means. You do, no question.
I could list Trump lecturing/condescending/preaching/insulting the leaders and the people of other nations until the cows come home. Agree to disagree here.
Yes, of course they would. But they'd use the CIA and diplomacy that's out of the public eye to do it. I'm sorry, but that ain't any better.
I'll believe that you and Republican leaders are REALLY neo-isolationists when you start cutting defense spending.
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:39 pmYou're saying that from the perspective if a US soldier. That's why YOU think our troops are there.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I've run out of readable colors to reply in detail, so I'll just say this :
Small residual forces in Afghanistan, Iraq (Kurdish area) & Syria (Kurdish area) were no longer there for nation building. They are/were there to prevent a repeat of 9-11. To prevent AQ/IS from reemerging to threaten the US & our allies again. Iraq is selfgoverning & Afghanistan was transitioning back to conditions based Taliban rule before our early withdrawal.
How hard would it be for me to find an Iraqi that finds your view arrogant, imperialist, and to tell you that those soldiers are in Iraq to keep Islam down, and to promote secular governance.
How hard would it be to find leaders in Iraqi that know full well that the leaders in Iraq are backed by the US government....at the point of a gun? How busy do you suppose the local CIA Iraq guy is over there? Plenty busy. Pulling strings on puppets.
I understand WHY you want those troops there. But it's about AMERICA'S interest, not the necessarily interests of locals. And in many cases? It's NOT int the interest of locals. If you were on team Saddam when the US was sending him all that money? I'm sure it was great. But if you weren't on the inside? That American arrogance made your life HORRIBLE. And in many cases? That US money led to your death. THAT is American arrogance.
Again, all you're giving me is the perspective of a US soldier.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm The Afghan transition process could have continued while our small residual force presence continued to bolster the ASF & maintain our intel & anti-terrorism capability. In both cases, it was the continuation of a gradual drawdown from our invasions, occupations, & nation building. In both cases, politically induced premature withdrawal lead to collapse.
How hard would it be to find Afghanis who think that the US soldiers are there to prop up the corrupt leaders that treat their particular business or family like absolute sh(t? That's the moral consequence of what you believe is a good intent on America's part. It's not all sunshine and rainbows when we part troops in a country.
Never said that we could. Where I think we differ is that I believe that we can learn from past successes and failures....and apply these lessons to future foreign policy decisions. Whenever I do that on this forum, you react harshly. I'm trying to figure out why....I think we're talking past each other more often than not.
That's great. But understand that this is a complete change from 70 years of US foreign policy. Foreign policy that has led to both good and bad outcomes that we are still dealing with right now, and for years into the future.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I'm not out to change the world. I just want the US & our allies to survive & continue to enjoy our way of life, doing good around the world, where we can, without forcing other societies & governments to comply to our standards unless they are an existential threat to us.
This is a 180 from our last Republican POTUS, as you know.
Dude, I'm sorry, but Trump supporters don't know what the word "isolationist" means. You do, no question.
But to the actual point...... this doesn't comport with the total freakout that you and TrumpNation had about the Afghani pull-out. Biden PRACTICED isolationism with Afghanistan, instead of just talking about it. Your reaction...assuming you and TrumpNation honestly want isolationism...should have been, at the very least, more understanding of the KIA's and imperfect pullout. You and TrumpNation should have supported him more, even though it wasn't the good pullout you wanted.
I could list Trump lecturing/condescending/preaching/insulting the leaders and the people of other nations until the cows come home. Agree to disagree here.
Yes, of course they would. But they'd use the CIA and diplomacy that's out of the public eye to do it. I'm sorry, but that ain't any better.
And if you haven't figured it out? I'm 100% behind your disdain of Biden's USAid game......I have no interest in that USA propaganda stuff. Don't care that the message is good, bad, or otherwise. Just sayin'....Biden and every POTUS since WWII has pushed our nonsense all over the planet. I'd like it to stop. And the covert CIA stuff, too.
Enjoyed this back and forth, and I'm going to continue to try and tone it down with you...whether you like it or not.
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:39 pmYou're saying that from the perspective if a US soldier. That's why YOU think our troops are there.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I've run out of readable colors to reply in detail, so I'll just say this :
Small residual forces in Afghanistan, Iraq (Kurdish area) & Syria (Kurdish area) were no longer there for nation building. They are/were there to prevent a repeat of 9-11. To prevent AQ/IS from reemerging to threaten the US & our allies again. Iraq is selfgoverning & Afghanistan was transitioning back to conditions based Taliban rule before our early withdrawal.
How hard would it be for me to find an Iraqi that finds your view arrogant, imperialist, and to tell you that those soldiers are in Iraq to keep Islam down, and to promote secular governance. Talk to the Kurds, or our Iraqi interpreters, or members of the ISF Special Forces & Iraqi Air Force, or the millions of Iraqi women who enjoy freedoms they never had before. Ditto for Afghanistan.
How hard would it be to find leaders in Iraqi that know full well that the leaders in Iraq are backed by the US government....at the point of a gun? How busy do you suppose the local CIA Iraq guy is over there? Plenty busy. Pulling strings on puppets.The Iraqi govt are hardly US puppets. Iran has as much influence as the US does. It's a coalition govt, doing a delicate balancing act between Iran, the US & their Arab neighbors & their own Shia & Sunni factions. They've come a long way since we partnered with them to drive ISIS underground or out of their country. Especially the Kurds.
I understand WHY you want those troops there. But it's about AMERICA'S interest, not the necessarily interests of locals. And in many cases? It's NOT int the interest of locals. If you were on team Saddam when the US was sending him all that money? I'm sure it was great. But if you weren't on the inside? That American arrogance made your life HORRIBLE. And in many cases? That US money led to your death. THAT is American arrogance.
It's also in their interest to keep IS & AQ from regaining power. They can't do it without our help.
Again, all you're giving me is the perspective of a US soldier.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm The Afghan transition process could have continued while our small residual force presence continued to bolster the ASF & maintain our intel & anti-terrorism capability. In both cases, it was the continuation of a gradual drawdown from our invasions, occupations, & nation building. In both cases, politically induced premature withdrawal lead to collapse.
Also the perspective of the Afghans falling from our airplanes as we flew off & abandonded them, ...& the tens of thousands left behind who will pay the price for helping us.
How hard would it be to find Afghanis who think that the US soldiers are there to prop up the corrupt leaders that treat their particular business or family like absolute sh(t? That's the moral consequence of what you believe is a good intent on America's part. It's not all sunshine and rainbows when we part troops in a country.Do you really think most of the Afghan population wanted us gone & favored the return of the Taliban ?
Never said that we could. Where I think we differ is that I believe that we can learn from past successes and failures....and apply these lessons to future foreign policy decisions. Whenever I do that on this forum, you react harshly. I'm trying to figure out why....I think we're talking past each other more often than not.
We have learned -- under Trump, who did we invade ? Where did we initiate nation building ?
That's great. But understand that this is a complete change from 70 years of US foreign policy. Foreign policy that has led to both good and bad outcomes that we are still dealing with right now, and for years into the future.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:13 pm I'm not out to change the world. I just want the US & our allies to survive & continue to enjoy our way of life, doing good around the world, where we can, without forcing other societies & governments to comply to our standards unless they are an existential threat to us.
35 of those years were in surviving then winning the Cold War. 30 more were in fighting & prevailing in the GWOT.
This is a 180 from our last Republican POTUS, as you know.
Yes. That's where Trump was different. He's an isolationist.
Dude, I'm sorry, but Trump supporters don't know what the word "isolationist" means. You do, no question.
His isolationism was a major reason he was elected. You think "no more stupid wars" didn't resonate.
But to the actual point...... this doesn't comport with the total freakout that you and TrumpNation had about the Afghani pull-out. Biden PRACTICED isolationism with Afghanistan, instead of just talking about it. Your reaction...assuming you and TrumpNation honestly want isolationism...should have been, at the very least, more understanding of the KIA's and imperfect pullout. You and TrumpNation should have supported him more, even though it wasn't the good pullout you wanted.Biden didn't practice isolationism. He irresponsibly abandoned an allied nation & it's entire population & double crossed our NATO allies.
I could list Trump lecturing/condescending/preaching/insulting the leaders and the people of other nations until the cows come home. Agree to disagree here. Do you think they didn't need to hear it ? Especially our EU NATO allies ?
Yes, of course they would. But they'd use the CIA and diplomacy that's out of the public eye to do it. I'm sorry, but that ain't any better.
Reread the stuff that Sam Powers is peddling in Hungary. Do you really think that Trump would allow his State Dept (or CIA) to promote that agenda ?
And if you haven't figured it out? I'm 100% behind your disdain of Biden's USAid game......I have no interest in that USA propaganda stuff. Don't care that the message is good, bad, or otherwise. Just sayin'....Biden and every POTUS since WWII has pushed our nonsense all over the planet. I'd like it to stop. And the covert CIA stuff, too. What was Trump's USAID propaganda ? Attain energy independence ?
Enjoyed this back and forth, and I'm going to continue to try and tone it down with you...whether you like it or not.
Glad you're enjoying it. I'm ready for a break.
Old Salt, you're looking at the good outcomes, and COMPLETELY ignoring the bad ones. US troops killed tens of thousands of people in these countries, and more civilians than we'd care to count. And many of them? Simply defending their country from invaders. Just as you'd do if the US was invaded.
No. He wasn't.
Yes, I realize that people get killed in wars, including civilians.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:16 pmOld Salt, you're looking at the good outcomes, and COMPLETELY ignoring the bad ones. US troops killed tens of thousands of people in these countries, and more civilians than we'd care to count. And many of them? Simply defending their country from invaders. Just as you'd do if the US was invaded.
Please tell me that you understand you're doing that so that we can move on........
Cool, thanks.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:21 pmYes, I realize that people get killed in wars, including civilians.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:16 pmOld Salt, you're looking at the good outcomes, and COMPLETELY ignoring the bad ones. US troops killed tens of thousands of people in these countries, and more civilians than we'd care to count. And many of them? Simply defending their country from invaders. Just as you'd do if the US was invaded.
Please tell me that you understand you're doing that so that we can move on........
Sheesh. Still with the all-or-nothing. What Trump ok'd was a relatively small amount of defensive aid, in hopes of deterring further Russian incursions. It was a trickle compared to what we've given since the invasion. I agree with it (so far) because, before Trump, we fomented revolutions & regime changes since 2004 & held out the prospect of eventual EU & NATO membership. But I don't approve unlimited aid in hopes they can recover all lost territory. As you're fond of pointing out, we enticed them to give up their nucs, so we're obligated to come to their aid, despite how little they did to develop their own defenses.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:19 pmNo. He wasn't.
Of have you forgotten the arms and training he gave to Ukraine? Arms and training that had never been given before. Brand new. All by himself...that was 100% Trump.
The very same arms and training you don't like now that Biden is doing it. Sorry, that's not isolationism.
The WORD isolationism is all or nothing. I have nothing to do with it. But you want to get mad at me for using words correctly.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:31 pmSheesh. Still with the all-or-nothing.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:19 pmNo. He wasn't.
Of have you forgotten the arms and training he gave to Ukraine? Arms and training that had never been given before. Brand new. All by himself...that was 100% Trump.
The very same arms and training you don't like now that Biden is doing it. Sorry, that's not isolationism.
You may wish to reconsider your all-or-nothing, black-or-white, no-nuance interpretation of isolationism.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:39 pmThe WORD isolationism is all or nothing. I have nothing to do with it. But you want to get mad at me for using words correctly.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:31 pmSheesh. Still with the all-or-nothing.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:19 pmNo. He wasn't.
Of have you forgotten the arms and training he gave to Ukraine? Arms and training that had never been given before. Brand new. All by himself...that was 100% Trump.
The very same arms and training you don't like now that Biden is doing it. Sorry, that's not isolationism.
Trump can't send in US troops to kill thousands of ISIS members in Iraq and Syria; send in drones to Somalia, Yemen, and other places we'll never hear about; have dozens and dozens of military bases all over the world both in allied countries and in hostile territory; have aircraft carriers deployed to all points abroad that can strike at any moment; send arms to Ukraine for the first time; buffer defenses in Poland.....and hilariously claim he's an isolationist.
You're using the wrong freaking word. And then yelling at me for not agreeing with your patently incorrect use of the word, and claiming I'm hectoring you for telling you that that's not anywhere close to what Trump did.
Pick a different word. Problem solved.
