Tweet
DEBATE: who caused the war in Ukraine?
I think we should have a full-scale debate thread about this. I used to agree with you on this, but this war has been like the laboratory experiment which proves all the paper theories wrong. The key is predictive value, look at the predictions of your favorite thinkers, did they get it right?
How? I already wrote:
How do you solve this diplomatically? Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire, and to do this he needs to return international law to what it was before 1914. Would you compromise and meet him halfway, say, with 1938 rules?
I believe that Putin is acting like a Biblical King of old, righteously committing evils as part of God's mysterious plan, as explained by Pat Robertson.
Meanwhile America's influence and coherence has been dropping like a stone ever since the competitive pressures of the cold war ended. At that time our elite realized they could get away with becoming the short-sighted, self-serving, incompetent crooks they've become. At least our overpriced weapons are effective, I credit the competitive international arms market for that, and nothing else.
On the other hand, Vladimir Putin is a KGB agent who climbed to the top of the Epic Darwinian Corpse-pile that is Soviet/post-Soviet politics. You're painting him as some sort of naïve hippie who is being led around the nose by the 5-dimentional chess geniuses of the Washington Swamp, who are always thinking decades ahead of brilliant new ways to strengthen America.
This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree?
This is not a sign of competent Machiavellianism, it's the key to America's strategic incompetence. Credibility and trust are the main currency here, both of them have been profitlessly expended since the 1960's with no attempt from the elites to remedy the situation, except for counterproductive censorship attempts that are absurdly out of place in the internet era.
I'd recommend you strengthen your argument by using examples from the past century.
South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were invaded by the communists long before America put boots on the ground in response. The only problem with that war was that due to some lawyer's fine print we didn't openly fortify a front-line across Laos. Those whole thing could have been as cheap and quiet as the as the War On Terror in the Philippines. Heard about that campaign? Nobody has, because we won.
The first 5 rules of warfare are: 1. Don't get outflanked. 2. Cut your enemy's supply lines, all else is a distraction 3. Ranged weapons are strategically useless unless you can win a war of attrition 4. Democracies don't win wars of attrition. 5. Monarchies are immune to communist subversion (unless they are run by liberal, literal cuckolds like Mr. Romanov) therefore don't send a penny to the Vietnamese, have Thailand handle everything.
So what did we do? Instead of paying Thailand to fortify a line across Laos to the sea, we followed the lawyerly fine print of some treaty that the Communists were ignoring from before the ink was dry. The result meant dropping more bombs on Laos than were dropped in all of WW2...But at least there weren't boots on the ground, except when there were. And they did all this while thinking it could be kept secret.
No, the lesson of Vietnam was not "USA BAD" it was "treat lawyers like someone who is trying to kill you, because they are".
About 99% thought we were going to going to overthrow Saddam and then bring the troops home a month later, not that we were going to conduct an experiment to see if meth-crazed foreign soldiers make better social workers than actual locals.
This is evidence of incompetence, not Machiavellian brilliance.
If so, it's the Polish, the Balts, and most of all the Ukrainians themselves who are lying the hardest. Why do you think you know more than them, the people who are closest to the issue, who have lifetimes of direct first-hand experience with the issue?
Originally posted by Barry
View Post
Originally posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond
View Post
Originally posted by Barry
View Post
Meanwhile America's influence and coherence has been dropping like a stone ever since the competitive pressures of the cold war ended. At that time our elite realized they could get away with becoming the short-sighted, self-serving, incompetent crooks they've become. At least our overpriced weapons are effective, I credit the competitive international arms market for that, and nothing else.
On the other hand, Vladimir Putin is a KGB agent who climbed to the top of the Epic Darwinian Corpse-pile that is Soviet/post-Soviet politics. You're painting him as some sort of naïve hippie who is being led around the nose by the 5-dimentional chess geniuses of the Washington Swamp, who are always thinking decades ahead of brilliant new ways to strengthen America.
This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree?
Originally posted by Barry
View Post
It justified going to war against Spain by pretending the USS Maine was attacked
It cooked up a whole croc of garbage in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify the invasion of Vietnam.
The first 5 rules of warfare are: 1. Don't get outflanked. 2. Cut your enemy's supply lines, all else is a distraction 3. Ranged weapons are strategically useless unless you can win a war of attrition 4. Democracies don't win wars of attrition. 5. Monarchies are immune to communist subversion (unless they are run by liberal, literal cuckolds like Mr. Romanov) therefore don't send a penny to the Vietnamese, have Thailand handle everything.
So what did we do? Instead of paying Thailand to fortify a line across Laos to the sea, we followed the lawyerly fine print of some treaty that the Communists were ignoring from before the ink was dry. The result meant dropping more bombs on Laos than were dropped in all of WW2...But at least there weren't boots on the ground, except when there were. And they did all this while thinking it could be kept secret.
No, the lesson of Vietnam was not "USA BAD" it was "treat lawyers like someone who is trying to kill you, because they are".
More than half of them, believed Saddam Hussein was in someway implicated in 9/11. More than 80% of them believed Saddam had WMD.
This is evidence of incompetence, not Machiavellian brilliance.
ACX:...Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence...the intelligence community might suck at the sort of small-state terrorism work it’s been asked to do the past few decades, but that “infiltrating Russia” is kind of its bread and butter and a big part of its institutional DNA. Maybe we should trust it more on Great Power conflict than on tinpot dictator stuff? ...Bounded Distrust...
The US Government is lying again today.
.gif "Gunsmilie(1)")
Comment