Overestimating Russian military strength
Ukraine has been grinding away with its counter offensive over the summer. Many have claimed that the counter offensive “failed”. Some, like James (Jim) Rickards of the Daily Reckoning, suggested that the not only did the Russians stop the counter offensive, but is “winning decisively.” These assumptions, according to Foreign Affairs’ Zoltan Barany, are driven by western analysts’ too willing to take information from Russia seriously. Reality paints a different picture.
From Foreign Affairs:
Those miscalculations, combined with other assessments over the past decade, led directly to the West’s overvaluation of the Russian armed forces’ likelihood of success in Ukraine. By 2022, most analysts believed that by possessing one of the largest standing armies in the world and having equipped it with a variety of sophisticated weapons systems, Russia would inevitably have a natural advantage over Ukraine’s much smaller defense forces.
Four reasons go a long way to explaining these misjudgments. First, Western military observers have tended to rest their assumptions on flawed evidence. For instance, many seemed to interpret Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in Syria in 2015 as demonstrations of the success of its post-2008 defense reforms. In Crimea, however, there was almost no fighting involved and some of the local population was pro-Russian; and in Syria, Russia’s air force could carry out major bombing campaigns in the virtual absence of air defenses. In other words, these conflicts said little about how Russian forces would perform in a conventional land war against a resolute and well-armed enemy. It was thus surprising to many of these same analysts that Putin’s army was unable to take Kyiv in 48 hours in 2022. They had not accounted for the fact that Russia now faced the very different situation of a city of three million people spread out over 330 square miles and split by a large river with tributaries, and whose population was overwhelmingly hostile.
Second, Western analysts have been too ready to take information coming out of Russia at face value. For example, Russian reports about its large-scale military exercises convinced many security experts that Moscow’s army had vastly improved its logistics, communications systems, air support of ground operations, and, more generally, joint operations between different branches of the armed forces. Skepticism should have been warranted: Russian defense analysts could hardly be expected to admit that their country’s military reform was a failure or that corruption was a pervasive cancer on the system of armaments acquisition. Yet when Putin began massing troops on Ukraine’s border in late 2021, many Western analysts feared an overwhelming onslaught. A third problem relates to the nature of contacts between Russian military and security experts and their colleagues in the United States and NATO in the years before the war. These Russian experts, who cultivated ties to the West, tended to be urbane, westernized, multilingual, and smart, but they also had close ties to the Kremlin and supported official Russian narratives. Meanwhile, throughout Putin’s 23-year reign, his regime has imposed decades-long prison sentences on local defense analysts who have said things or published articles objectionable to the censors even if they enjoyed no access to classified materials.
Finally, but no less important, U.S. military experts have long given too much focus to weapons systems and new technology in Putin’s Russia. Since 2010, the Russian Ministry of Defense has organized annual large-scale exercises with tens of thousands of soldiers, featuring interservice combined-arms maneuvers, showing off the military’s new weapons and equipment, from high-tech personal communications systems to the Zircon scramjet-powered antiship hypersonic cruise missile. Observing these staged events, many Western observers concluded that Russia was building a modern, professional, and effective army. Thus, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine, many assumed that they would quickly subdue the second-largest country in Europe. Few paid close attention to the actual composition, training, and preparedness of Russian troops themselves.
Foreign Affairs provides the rest of the analysis here.
Category: International Affairs, Russia
I’ll keep my analysis simple…
Billions of our taxpayer dollars have been pumped into Ukraine. Russia = bigger, more established, former center of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was essentially a puppet state. Admittedly, I don’t keep up with things. Is China or any other country supporting Russia with equipment, materiel, and volunteer manpower? Without external intervention and aid, Ukraine would have likely been–at most–able to withdraw to defensible positions and forced a stalemate.
I’m not pro-Russian, nor am I pro-Ukrainian. I just think that we should focus on our own internal affairs before propping up a non-ally.
That’s what I have been saying, just not as well said as you have said it.
Ukraine is winning.
Their pool parties are the envy of Europe!! /s
This ‘war’ is fake and gay.
Kiev had a chance to stop it YEARS ago, but alas, even if the ‘war between states’ ends tomorrow the civil war has just re-begun.
Everyone is getting what they want out of this conflict so I guess by that metric it’s a success. Energy prices are going to go up most likely so I can’t complain…
They should stop any aid due to the lack of diversity at that pool. Ukrainians are racist homo-trans phones. sarc
The only winners in this madness is the CEOs of the MIC Inc…and maybe, just maybe, some of the doods at the pool party may come away winners. I do believe I saw at least 6 maybe 9 potential meaningful overnight relationships for The Gunny Bunny lounging around.
BeSig: Perhaps, if you had experienced what I did, you would not be so incessantly pounding your war drum.
For seven months at the Guam Naval Hospital ICU, I with other dedicated corpsmen/nurses/doctors tended to the worst wounded Vietnam Marines who were in such bad shape they could not make it across the Pacific. For example, the young Marine with a gaping hole in his abdomen about four inches in diameter. He was always in pain and whined a lot – a difficult patient. I was assigned to this kid a lot because I was one of the few who had the emotional strength to tend to him for more than 2 days at a time. The more time spent, the more my investment in his welfare. About his 2nd month, he coded on me. The thought that went through my head repeatedly, as our team performed CPR for 45 minutes, was, “Don’t you dare die on me”. He went home to his loved ones in a box. I’m not one to cry, but I cried for him and his family. I have numerous stories of successes and failures in the ICU of which the horrors of war were driven home to me.
(continued)
(Continued)
I was fortunate during the eight months of my Vietnam tour to never have an injured teammate (though 14 were killed in the Battalion during this time). With the first VC I saw killed, I found out it was my duty to check the person to see if there was anything I could do – that is if we weren’t hauling ass to get away from the firefight. This enemy was dead and my immediate thought was, “this poor man is no different than me – a pawn in a pointless war”.
The Ukraine/Russia war is pointless, and the US involvement is just another stupid war in which we have been embroiled since at least Vietnam. There are hundreds of thousands of maimed soldiers and grieving families on both sides of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. I identify with the suffering of both sides. Those who experience the horrors of combat, such as I, carry those images all their lives. Your war drum pounding contributes to this suffering, and quite frankly it is disgusting.
aGrim, I don’t envy you whatsoever, but thanks for doing what you did during those difficult times.
For the benefit of those reading Grimmy’s comment, he was a Navy medic serving on a Long Range Reconnaissance Team (LRRP) of the 1st Marine Division’s 1st Recon Battalion. I may have crossed paths with him when the advance party of my Ranger company arrived at Camp Reasoner west of Da Nang. My company assumed the duties of the 1st Recon Battalion when it was withdrawn from Vietnam in late April to early May 1971.
“…My company assumed the duties of the 1st Recon Battalion”. No kidding? I’ll be damned. 1st Recon struck colors mid-March of ’71. A company (~200) stayed until the 1st of May. I and a few other docs went to MAG V (VI?) a few days later. Pleasantly, I didn’t see any Rangers before I left Reasoner 🙂
When you got to Reasoner was a scruffy shepherd mix still there? The Marines had named her ‘Ranger’ (of course as a cheap shot at the Army). She was a superb rat dog.
I don’t recall the dog. But A Company was still there. I had a meeting with the A Company commander. My company was ordered move to Da Nang and to commence operations on May 1, 1971. It must have been late April when I arrived there with our 1st SGT and the rest of the advance party. I recall a team coming into the company area. I was told it was the last LRRP patrol of the Battalion. The 196th Infantry Brigade of the Americal was also in the process to taking over from the 1st MARDIV.
The guys in my company on one of our LRRP teams adopted a Vietnamese mutt. It developed rabies. The entire company had to stand down and suspend operations for a couple of weeks. Everyone who had contact with the dog had to get those painful anti-rabies shots. However, I was able to avoid the shots.
Don’t all Rangers have rabies?
My team, Thin Man, got sent home when they struck colors. I was left alone in the hootch, and farmed out to other teams, mostly Wage Earner, for the last 1-1/2 months. They kept me pretty busy March through April as there weren’t enough docs for the number of teams. I was with one of the last two teams to come out of the field on 4/27, but they count the two radio relay operators as the last team to come out of the field the next day or two. Missed my chance for historical glory by jussstt that much. 🙂
No hardly any Rangers had Rabies. Anyway, none of mine got it. Likely, because of the shots. Since that mutt never licked my hand, I determined I would not get the shots. Anyway, I had already done ten months over there, and thought I was bullet proof. You may have still been there when I had my visit with the A Company commander. It had to have been during the last week in April.
I certainly appreciated all the gear you guys left behind: Dozens of sets of cammies; several boxes of Kabars; those patrol gloves; and an arms room full of AK’s and a 60mm mortar. I selected a pristine East German AK underfolder as my personal weapon.
I joined the military before the end of the Cold War. I made my first deployment before the end of the Cold War, with the next ones occurring after the USSR’s disintegration. In both instances, their conduct did not change along with their name. We were trailed by a Soviet submarine during my first deployment, and again by a Russian submarine during my first deployment after the USSR disintegrated.
While in theater, we were also monitored by a Soviet AGI, later Russian AGI. In both instances, they had the audacity to ask if they could move closer to our area to see what’s going on. Throughout the 1990s, and into this century, the Russian military deployed military aircraft towards North American airspace, including sending their bombers over to the Arctic. Recently, a combined group of naval ships consisting of both Chinese and Russian warships got too close for comfort resulting in the U.S. Navy’s sending warships in their direction.
The invasion of Ukraine was nothing like what the Russians claimed. If you go by some Russian sources, it was done to change the geopolitical order and to dislodge the U.S./West from the driver’s seat. It was also intended to fracture NATO. Together with the attempt to liquidate Ukraine, these blew up in Putin’s face. Additionally, the Russians never stopped their efforts to undermine the U.S. from within. See Mueller indictment against Russian nationals and their troll farm operation.
The Russians were never our friend, they continue to be a threat to us. Our support for Ukraine is an efficient way to mitigate this treat.
As we said on the boats,
Every US Carrier at sea was probably followed by a Charlie Class SSGN.
This continued to be a reality after the USSR disintegrated. The Russians were never our friends, and had always been our adversaries.
“had always been our adversaries.”
Only during the Soviet era. There is really no need for an adversarial attitude on our part towards Russia. Aside from a nuclear capability (usable only if the Russians go insane), they pose no serious threat to the US, a minimal threat to NATO, and a fantasy threat to Sweden.
“Only during the Soviet era.”
This is a categorically false statement. I know this for fact. As I mentioned elsewhere, I deployed before the USSR disintegrated, there was no difference between how they acted toward us during that deployment from how they reacted toward us after the USSR disintegrated. Russia’s actions, and statements, indicate that they are our adversaries. They pose a serious threat to United States, e.g., troll farm activities, cyber warfare, and other unrestricted warfare methods, and they conduct joint exercises with the Chinese. Guess who their adversary is during those trainings? If you don’t think that it is us and our allies, I have a bridge in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean I have up for sale for you.
“Russia’s actions, and statements, indicate that they are our adversaries.”
Like their putting missiles, naval bases, etc. in Cuba and Nicaragua? Fomenting Communist anti-American revolution all over the world?
Face it, Russia ain’t the USSR–it has neither the ideological motivation nor the capability to conquer the world, or even NATO. They do have their own national interests, which sometimes clash with ours, but so does France. That does not make them enemies. As for cyber warfare, there are other, bigger threats than Russian cyber warfare. Are you one of the nutcases that think Russia put Trump in office and frustrated poor old Hillary?
Response to timactual, September 12, 2023, Part 1A
timactual: Like their putting missiles, naval bases, etc. in Cuba and Nicaragua? Fomenting Communist anti-American revolution all over the world?
What part of the following statement did you not understand, mentioned in the post you replied to?
“I deployed before the USSR disintegrated, there was no difference between how they acted toward us during that deployment from how they reacted toward us after the USSR disintegrated. Russia’s actions, and statements, indicate that they are our adversaries. They pose a serious threat to United States, e.g., troll farm activities, cyber warfare, and other unrestricted warfare methods, and they conduct joint exercises with the Chinese.” – thebesig
timactual: Face it, Russia ain’t the USSR–it has neither the ideological motivation nor the capability to conquer the world, or even NATO.
The USSR may be gone, but the people that manned it still exist. Putin is a carryover from the Soviet era, and he is butt hurt over the fact that the USSR disintegrated. Also, if you read my post above with the intention of understanding what I said to you, you would understand that they have not given up on their efforts to change the current world order from one lead by the west to one lead by Russia, they call it “multi polar” world, but their intent is anything but multi polar.
Response to timactual, September 12, 2023, Part 2A
timactual: They do have their own national interests, which sometimes clash with ours, but so does France. That does not make them enemies.
France is not consistently sending their combat pilots towards US Air Space, nor is France sailing their Naval ships towards US waters inconsistent with the innocent intentions of a commercial vessel. Additionally, I’ve heard of the Russians conducting both troll farm operations against the United States, as well as hacking operations against the United States. I haven’t come across information of a French troll farm trying to influence opinions in the US, nor have I come across articles of menacing hacking attempts by cyberwarriors in France against cyber targets in the United States.
timactual: As for cyber warfare, there are other, bigger threats than Russian cyber warfare.
Sorry, hacking pipelines is a serious threat. Also, cyber warfare is a part of unrestricted warfare, which is the more likely threat that we face than what we faced during the Cold War. Both China and the Russians are waging unrestricted warfare against the United States. Who needs to launch nuclear weapons when you could cripple infrastructure in a way that would jack up prices, disrupt services, disrupt the supply chain, etc.?
timactual: Are you one of the nutcases that think Russia put Trump in office and frustrated poor old Hillary?
Based on the trend of your responses, critical thinking appears to be a foreign concept to you. How many times do I have to argue against that claim, here, before you figure out the answer to that question?
https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=122953
Your comment is really dumb. It’s almost like you ignore the last 30 years of history completely. You would have made a good intelligence analyst pre-911.
A major misstep by the US was that we never approached the collapse of the Soviet Union in the same way we did V-E or V-J… we upset the entire status quo in Russia but offered no real support to fill the vacuum left behind.
We broke it, we didn’t buy it. We slapped down a wayward child, then we left for a pack of smokes.
I was a spook in the Marines from 1978 to 1998, working among other things what we called the Soviet/Russian problem, and I can categorically tell you that you know not what you speak about. Russia and particularly Russia under Vlad is an enemy to everyone.
My Brother did Cyber Security for the Government/ Military up until 2019. He couldn’t/ wouldn’t go into details but he said the fucking Russians were the biggest and most constant cyber threat.
aGrim: Perhaps, if you read my articles and posts with the intention of understanding what I’m actually saying, you would not be concluding that I’m “incessantly pounding my war drum.”
So, where, in any of my posts, either the above article or anything else on this site, did I pound the war drum? Show me what you think I said, point to a specific post, so that I could break it down for you so that you could understand what I was actually saying. If you understand what I was posting, then the rest of what you said here would not have needed to be said.
I’m an Iraq Veteran, and also a Retired Soldier. Do you honest to God think that I’m itching to return to a combat theater? I will follow what is going on around the world, in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and in the Indo Pacific Region, as a miscalculation in any of those areas can evolve into something where I have to drop my current life plans due to being called back to active service and sent back to the combat theater. I don’t have your luck when it comes to escaping your assumed scenario.
Also, if you’ve followed this war as intensively as I have, you would have a hard time believing that this would erupt into WWIII. The more I follow details on the ground there, the less likely I see this as turning into a thermo nuclear war scenario, let alone a conventional WWIII.
I think that emotion and passion can get the better of all of us. I read your post as simply an analysis of what’s going on. It’s the Nikki Haley-type “We must continue to support [insert country here]” people I consider warmongers.
As I stated previously, we all have our own experiences and opinions. War and military service in general affect us all differently, and what I did over 21 years isn’t what you did, nor have I done anywhere near what many other regulars here have.
A warmonger is someone, especially one who has power and influence, that attempts to instigate hostility, or one who does. However, when a war is already initiated by an aggressor, and then someone not even in the countries involved jumps in and either talks about it, or offers arguments based on historic trends, that does not indicate somebody as a “warmonger.” The war is already underway, had already been started, and I’m looking at examples like Afghanistan in the 1980s as one of the ways to deal with it.
This is not one of those situations where we could just let the Russians and Ukrainians slug it out without frustrating Russia’s efforts, as Russia sees both Ukraine and Belarus the same way China sees Taiwan. The Russians would not stop with Ukraine, it was no accident that some of their vehicles had “Onward to Berlin” on them. Putin has this delusion where he could restore the former glory of the USSR/Russian Empire. He did call for NATO to pull NATO troops back… From within NATO territory… Months before he invaded.
The information sources I’ve been following related to this topic have been ahead of both network and cable news. I just saw Ukraine related Yahoo! News articles today, they were practically old news, stale, out-of-date, etc., compared to what is being uploaded by both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, from their positions, and even while they are engaged in fighting. There is also a YouTube channel that provides communication intercepts showing what the Russians are actually thinking and feeling about the conflict.
I followed the USSR war in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, their war in Ukraine is like déjà vu of the 1980s, but accelerated. As long as Russia is a threat, I don’t mind seeing them weakened from this effort.
I am certainly impressed, and a bit jealous, of your access to Russian intentions and strategy. Do you commute to the Kremlin, or is that inside info provided by insiders?
Go back and read my posts on this thread, as well as on other threads related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Again, I’ve seen first tiered information sources, to include video feed from the combat theater. I’ve been doing this since Russia invaded invertebrate 2022, there is a pattern with regards to how they act, and there is corroboration between what is shown from the battlefield and what is being said by both sides… This is open-sourced information.
Technically, a warmonger is one who advocates for aggression against another nation or group – not purely one who instigates such.
Quibbles aside, calling you a warmonger seems hyperbolic.
My definition is based on what the dictionary defines it as. The intent, based on the definitions that I saw, was a change in status quo from non-aggression towards aggression. Instigation can take any form, including advocating for such, and it doesn’t always lead to something being instigated, but its intent is to have hostilities occur where they are currently not occurring.
I cannot argue with Merriam-Webster as a reputable source, but it seems to be in the minority among dictionaries as far as “instigating war” being a defining quality of the warmonger:
“a politician or other leader who is often encouraging a country to go to war” – Cambridge Dictionary [as in most definitions, in cases such as WWI & II, this would include getting advocating for entrance into wars already underway]
“If you describe a politician or leader as a warmonger, you disapprove of them because you think they are encouraging people to start or join a war.” – Collins
“(derogatory) Someone who advocates war; a militarist.” – Wiktionary
“a person who wants a war or tries to make other people want to start or fight a war” – The Britannica Dictionary
“a person, especially a politician or leader, who wants to start a war or encourages people to start a war” – Oxford Learner’s Dictionary [this one supports your case]
Etymologically, the term simply implies someone who benefits (especially financially) from war – lit., a “war merchant.” In this respect, all of us who ever accepted a paycheck or a free beer for our time in uniform could be arguably accused of warmongering (though to a degree of ad absurdum in most cases).
While one advocating for instigating war does fall under the term “warmonger,” there are many reputable definitions that do not require it.
Still, to accuse you of warmongering because you advocate materiel support for another nation at war is arguable and, to me, remains hyperbolic.
Actually, all your definitions support my argument. I’ve attached an image of your post, highlighting where you actually supported my argument. “Encouraging a country to go to war” indicates a country that is not currently at war. Suggesting that we provide more materials to Ukraine to fight Russia is not arguing that the United States should go to war, this is where your “advocating entrance into wars already underway” comment.
For example, both France and Spain supported the 13 revolting colonies under the cloak of neutrality. However, it was not until they declared war, and then sent combat troops to engage the British forces as our allies that they were seen as being at war as our allies.
Advocating war implies a current status of not being in a war (Wiktionary). Wanting a war, or trying to get other people to start or fight a war, is not the same thing as advocating sending supplies to Ukraine while remaining out of the war ourselves. These are two different concepts. Dito with your Oxford definition, also assuming a current status of not being in a war.
No, that’s not what it etymologically means. In fact “monger” originally was used for trade/business. Where trade is involved, a status quo is changed. A person has money, someone else has the wares. An exchange of money for products represents a change in status quo for both sides when it comes to assets. Ergo… trade peace for war.
The consistency of the definitions that you quoted does not support your contention, but supports my argument.
Logic was not your strongest subject, it seems.
Hate_me: Logic was not your strongest subject, it seems. [SELF PROJECTION]
Those who know me, including those who had been stationed with me, would beg to differ with you. In fact, I might screen capture this post and show this to them.
Logic is one of my strong points. It is one of the reasons why I excelled at math in high school, going as high as calculus and getting A’s all the way through. The classes that I have taken that required logic were easy A’s. I would not have made it as far into my doctoral program had it not been for my strength in logic.
This has also been a reality in the professional side of the house, being an operations specialist, specifically one who specialized in over the horizon targeting and tracking, requires a lot of logic. I’ve used logic in the last century, and in this one, to accurately predict the course of events.
The reality is that your argument is completely devoid of logic. I see no fact, reason, or logic in your argument. It’s not just with you, but with others that I’ve argued against in this thread and elsewhere in the nearly 20 years of arguing against people online.
The best thing that could describe your argument, as well as that of others here, is “gas lighting.” It is one of the reasons why I persistently reject your arguments, as well as the other arguments against me on this thread. My rejecting of your colossally erroneous, illogical, factually deficient argument is not “lacking logic.”
As had been noted in the past nearly 2 decades of debate, including from some that I’ve argued against, my arguments are logical, well thought out, well-reasoned, factual, etc. The image in my last response is an example of basic doctoral thinking. You’re making inferences that your own references don’t support. A deeper search of those terms supports my arguments.
I’m gonna feel bad when you eventually give yourself a stroke over some random people on the internet who don’t accept everything you say as gospel.
Hate_me: I’m gonna feel bad when you eventually give yourself a stroke over some random people on the internet who don’t accept everything you say as gospel.
This statement proves that you are not even paying attention to the post that you are responding to. I’ve said this numerous times in nearly 2 decades of arguing against others online and I will say it again.
I don’t argue with people to change their minds. Likewise, I come out of these debates with the same argument I had going into these debates. Instead, I argue for the sake of indefinite disagreement, where neither side changes their positions.
Where, in this mode of operation, does it require people to accept what I say? I already know, before I post my first counter rebuttal, that there’s nothing that I can say or do to change the other person’s mind.
You claimed that logic was “not my best subject.” That is a clear indication of frustration, on your part with my consistently rejecting your argument. You demonstrated anger issues, control issues, and ego issues.
I do this for fun. The requirement to know about the topic compared to the oppositions’ knowing little about the topic puts me in position to see the true character of those I am arguing against. I leverage that information to get them to react the way I expect them to react, and then have fun watching their reactions.
LOL
If that’s an actual Russian Marine we really don’t have much to fear from Russia. Also, if the Russians are too dumb or incompetent to stop all those alleged “intercepts” of Russian soldiers they aren’t much of a threat.
” Elite” is comparative within the Russian Military
timactual: LOL
If that’s an actual Russian Marine we really don’t have much to fear from Russia. Also, if the Russians are too dumb or incompetent to stop all those alleged “intercepts” of Russian soldiers they aren’t much of a threat.
You don’t need to be “lean and mean” to operate as a civilian cyberwarrior, or work as part of a troll farm. One of the key themes addressed in the book, “Unrestricted Warfare,” involves a weaker society using “out of the box thinking” to the point of using methods beyond normal military “bandwidths” to defeat a stronger society. The Ukrainians are demonstrating that in this current war, doing things like testing Russian helicopter reactions to their drones so that they could figure out ways to damage Russian helicopters with drones the way they’ve damaged Russian tanks and warships. Theoretically, fat civilians could operate these drones and damage Russian military assets. Unrestricted Warfare concepts have not escaped either the CCP or the Kremlin, both are applying these concepts against the West.
Also, those are not “alleged” intercepts but actual intercepts. They made these mistakes in the past. There is even a battle in World War II where the Germans defeated a larger Soviet force partly due to the latter’s lack of communication discipline.
I’m not aGrim, nor do I read the post as war mongering but since you asked for opinions, the meme at the end of your reply comes off as insulting rather than humorous. Just one man’s opinion.
Where did I ask for opinions? I just reread my post above, and I did not see where I asked for opinions.
The meme that comes at the end of my reply is very appropriate. aGrim made a colossally erroneous assumption about what I was saying, and about what I was doing. He followed that assumption up by addressing me as somebody that is actually doing what he assumed that I did. If you do not see how that could be insulting, then your opinion about my meme being insulting is meaningless and shows that you are one-sided.
The moment he made an erroneous assumption about my intent is the moment that whatever reply he intended for me missed the mark by a longshot. This is not the first time that he and I have engaged in an argument. And yes, that meme is hilarious as f*, given its use above.
The fact that you post on TAH, a forum where opinions are welcomed and encouraged, is by default, asking for opinions.
Wrong! When someone tells me that I asked for opinions, they claim that I specifically asked, word for word, in my post above that I asked for opinions.
Mentioning these comments section is pure nonsense, it is a feature of the site that existed before I posted my first comment here. If this was what was intended, it was a BS excuse to explain away the fact that aGrim accused me of doing something I know for fact I wasn’t doing. Nothing, in any of my comments, would lead anybody to reasonably conclude that I was being a warmonger.
It’s also a BS complaint at the fact that I did respond the way I did, it was warranted, my response does not constitute telling people that they do not have an opinion here.
Relax. Take some time to organize your thoughts before you write.
Simple solution— Turn off the comments if you don’t want comments.
Correction, you should relax and take some time understanding what you are reading before you write.
I’m using dictation software to compose an argument that I’ve been making, based on first-tiered information sources, since last year.
My thoughts are well organized before posting. It helps when you, and the others, advance an argument that I’ve consistently rebutted… You guys have not been advancing anything new.
“You guys have not been advancing anything new”
Pot, meet kettle.
timactual: Pot, meet kettle.
You and I have argued enough times for you to know that what I say in my rebuttals hinges heavily on what is being said by the opposition. Meaning, if you think that I’m “not introducing anything new,” it’s because you and the others advance the same arguments over and over again, resulting in the same counter rebuttal over and over again.
Also, what I said in the post that you responded to above, right before the part that you actually quoted:
“It helps when you, and the others, advance an argument that I’ve consistently rebutted…” — thebesig
Again, I’ve been arguing this topic since shortly after the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. That part of the quote, that you ignored in favor of the part that you quoted, tells you that I’ve argued against others who advanced your points before, providing similar rebuttals to similar arguments.
The fact that you’d ignore the entire statement in favor of the one that you quoted speaks volumes about your questionable character and integrity.
“Where did I ask for opinions?”
*Snort*
What SFC D said.
*Snort*
What I said in response to what SFC D said.
Claiming that I asked for opinions is a BS argument.
Then turn off the comments, or post somewhere that doesn’t allow comments. Every post, every comment on TAH is an open invitation for opinions. You can call it bullshit all you want. That’s your opinion. Doesn’t change the facts.
“Open invitation to comments” is a strawman argument. Hence, my pointing out the fact that it was BS. That’s not opinion but fact. I was effectively accused of inviting opinion, then retaliating for receiving that opinion. This is not what happened.
Anybody with reading comprehension abilities, reading my posts with the intention of understanding what I said, would not conclude that I’m having issues with receiving responses.
The elephant in the room… I was accused of warmongering, I explained the fact that I wasn’t warmongering, I was accused of doing something that I know for a fact I wasn’t doing… Hence, my presenting a fact-based rebuttal against someone’s being colossally wrong about what I said and intended.
THAT is the crux of this specific argument. What you presented was opinion based on your failure to read and understand what you were reading.
My apologies, I forgot you were unquestionable. Strawman? Is this not a forum where comments are made and opinions are stated? I see many open minds here. You, good sir, are not one of them. You post with the intent of slapping down anyone who dares question your wisdom. I used to really enjoy how you could verbally dismantle a poser or sock puppet. However, it’s become your only means of expression and has worn very thin. Lighten up, Frances. You’re not arguing before the Supreme Court. Now you take your strawman and go have yourself a fine day.
Again, I don’t engage in an argument unless two requirements are simultaneously met, that I have extensive knowledge on the debate topic, and that those who would argue with me have little to no grasp of the debate topic. As has consistently been the case, those requirements have been met here.
Yes, strawman, as I was clearly accused of being a warmonger, subsequently impugned, then subsequently lectured. I have a God given right to defend myself from both an erroneous interpretation of my posts and of my intent. In response, I was accused of actively inviting opinions and then insulting those who gave it. This is what you are dismissing as “not accepting other opinions” and as “not having an open mind.” Disagreeing with your arguments, and identifying where you got it wrong, is not failing to be “open-minded.” This is an argument I expect from leftists.
You mention posers/sock puppets yet fail to notice the similarities. Like the posers that came here before, those that have argued with me for nearly 20 years online have demonstrated anger issues, control issues, and ego issues. If you’re going to act like these other folks, expect to be treated like these other folks. If this is wearing thin, then you need to stop doing what you’re doing on your end, otherwise I’m going to continue doing what I’ve been doing for nearly 20 years. Your side complains about “lack of open mindedness” while doing the very thing that you guys accuse me of doing, no efforts towards being open minded. This is simply a nonsense demand that your erroneous arguments be validated. Your comment reminds me of many of Blobfish’s claims about us.
Hmmmmm.I ain’t no psychologist, but when people think everbody is against them………?.
timactual: Hmmmmm.I ain’t no psychologist, but when people think everbody is against them………?.
Not “think” but “know”, based on the fact that multiple people are arguing against me here, advancing the same erroneous argument.
Istand corrected; you know everybody is against you.
timactual: Istand corrected; you know everybody is against you.
It’s obvious, based on our disagreement, that the folks that I am arguing against are against me in this debate. When I started doing this, nearly 2 decades ago, I jumped into threads dominated by Democrats, sometimes 15 to 25 of them, sometimes more than that. I would jump in and carpet bomb every single last one of their posts. After I did that, I fully expected to have at least the same number of rebuttals as the number of people I rebutted. At least… As I also expected their allies to also jump in and thus I would have more rebuttals to me than the posts in my initial salvo.
I have no issues with that, I’m used to being in argument situations where it is me against an opposition with multiple people, with few or no allies on my side.
(Sorry to use your post, but it’s gotten too skinny)
“that I have extensive knowledge on the debate topic, and that those who would argue with me have little to no grasp of the debate topic.”
So you admittedly only pick on people weaker than you! You are a bully, then, in addition to your other flaws.
timactual: So you admittedly only pick on people weaker than you! You are a bully, then, in addition to your other flaws.
Not arguing a topic against someone unless I have extensive knowledge on the topic, compared to their lack of knowledge, or having little knowledge, has everything to do with wisdom, and nothing to do with “picking on people weaker than me” or of “being a bully.” However, those who would argue with me, like you and the others here, given your lack of knowledge on the debate topic, reflects on narcissistic driven foolishness.
If anything, your attitude here indicates that you’re a bully… You’re most certainly acting like a bully who all of a sudden gets beaten around by the kid he intended to originally beat around. What you identify as “my flaws” has everything to do with the fact that your ego can’t handle the kind of pushback I’m giving you here.
My arguing topics I have extensive knowledge in, compared to the lack of it among the oppositions, forces the opposition in a situation to where they’ve entered a gun fight armed only with a plastic spork. Which leads to a question:
Would you enter a gun fight armed only with a plastic spork? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question and replies to your response, and put an “X” in the box that represents your response. Spare my any additional responses that you would want to give to this question. Your failure to answer this question per the parameters that I set will result in my asking you this question again in my next set of responses to you.
timactual,
That is axiomatically wrong.
He’s neither picking on people weaker than him nor is he a bully. He’s a pigeon playing chess.
He may be trying to be a bully but is more of a court jester – he keeps his head only so long as his betters find his insults amusing.
Hate_me: He’s neither picking on people weaker than him nor is he a bully.
This part of your post is correct. The rest of your post is nonsense.
Hate_me: He’s a pigeon playing chess. [SELF PROJECTION]
False. I’m using the relevant facts, reason, logic, etc., in my counter arguments against you guys. Your erroneous implication that you are applying “logic” to your argument is an example of what is meant by pigeon play in chess. You erroneously assumed that you had a legitimate standing in our argument when in fact you didn’t. You implied that I lacked logic when in fact I presented logic against your lack of it.
Hate_me: He may be trying to be a bully but is more of a court jester —
Neither is correct. There is a formula that I use when it comes to engaging in debate. As I mentioned, only arguing topics that I have extensive knowledge in against those who have little to no knowledge of what they are trying to argue.
“We can table your reliance on ad hominem fallacy for another time.” — Hate_me
Hate_me: he keeps his head only so long as his betters find his insults amusing.
You’re not my better. Your responses indicate that you don’t find my “insults” amusing. Your responses also indicate that you find disagreement as “insulting.”
“I was effectively accused of inviting opinion…”
First thing you’ve said in this thread that I agree with.
You and the others here accuse me of doing, regarding other people’s opinions, what you guys accuse me of doing. For example, I’m not among those who downvote Lars to oblivion, I don’t downvote his posts simply because I disagree with what he said. Yet, he gets downvoted to oblivion by those who fit the very definition of people who are not open minded.
“You and the others here accuse me…”
Hmmmmmm.
timactual: Hmmmmmm.
They’re accusations, as they have nothing to do with the facts related to my actions or statements.
““Open invitation to comments” is a strawman argument.”
Actually, it’s not. Look it up. It’s a fact, and it’s why they installed the ability to comment.
timactual: Actually, it’s not. Look it up. It’s a fact, and it’s why they installed the ability to comment. [Inductive Fallacy: Strawman]
FALSE! Your response is not a fact. Open invitation to comments, as used above, is a strawman argument. I was accused of doing something I know for a fact I didn’t do. Repeated readings of what I posted above still do not indicate that I was advocating that the United States go to war. This is what I was accused of doing. Providing that counter rebuttal does not constitute “asking for opinion, then insulting those that provide it.”
The comments feature is beside the point, it does not count as “actively asking for comments,” which is something I’ve done in previous posts… Asking for inputs in the comments section. I made no such call above. People’s commenting in the comments section is implied, and not related to the argument.
“Your response is not a fact.”
So I didn’t actually respond? If my response was not a fact, how did you know I responded, and why did you respond to it?
timactual: So I didn’t actually respond? If my response was not a fact, how did you know I responded, and why did you respond to it?
Go back and read the entire post that you responded to in order to understand what I’m arguing. You presented no fact, just an ego, anger, control driven response. I responded for obvious reasons. Let X be your response, and let Y be my counter response. The pattern that you should have already recognized, thus save you from asking this question, goes as follows: if X, then Y.” If you provide the X, and then ask why I provided the Y, then you are going to demonstrate yet another reason to why you do not know what you’re talking about. You simply want flap your lips with hot air.
Also, until you answer my yes/no questions per the parameters that I set, you have no legs to stand on asking me questions.
So we need your permission to comment on your comments?
timactual: So we need your permission to comment on your comments?
That’s not what I said, go back and reread the post that you responded to. What part of the following statement, in the post that you responded to, did you not understand?
“I was accused of doing something I know for a fact I didn’t do. Repeated readings of what I posted above still do not indicate that I was advocating that the United States go to war. This is what I was accused of doing. Providing that counter rebuttal does not constitute ‘asking for opinion, then insulting those that provide it.'” – thebesig
Reading comprehension; it’s a drug.
Any ambiguity (i.e., erroneous assumption) is, by academic convention, the fault of the presenter for not adequately defining his argument.
To say he didn’t understand your argument, workout elaborating on said argument, is to admit that your argument was inadequate and that you cannot support it with more detail. In sum, a concession of defeat.
without*
Hate_me: Any ambiguity (i.e., erroneous assumption) is, by academic convention, the fault of the presenter for not adequately defining his argument.
Nowhere in my post above, or in any of my posts or comments, have I presented an argument that could lead to the inference that I’m a “warmonger”. Even you acknowledged that in your other post, saying:
“Quibbles aside, calling you a warmonger seems hyperbolic.” -Hate_me
I generate my posts so that even a fifth grader could understand what I’m saying. I know this for a fact, as I’ve had a fifth grader read posts that I’ve generated, that were similar to what I’ve done here. That fifth grader had no problems understanding my posts.
The ambiguity is not on my end, but with those that I’ve rebutted regarding their misinterpretation of what I said. The fault is not on my end, but on that of the reader.
Hate_me: To say he didn’t understand your argument, workout elaborating on said argument, is to admit that your argument was inadequate and that you cannot support it with more detail. In sum, a concession of defeat.
Saying that he didn’t understand my argument is telling it like it is. No elaboration needed, as I was clear above, and provided more than sufficient enough information for someone to know for a fact that I’m not being a warmonger. As has been the case in nearly 2 decades of arguing against people online, no amount of elaboration and fact jamming of a post is going to convince folks like you, or the others here, to change your positions.
No, this is no concession of defeat. I don’t engage in debate unless I have extensive knowledge on the topic compared to lack of it, or near lack of it, on the opposition’s part. Meaning, I only engage in debates where I win. The warmonger/ “invite then attack opinions” accusations are a substitute for a lack of argument on the opposition’s part.
The responses against me are indicative of the opposition’s defeat.
“I know this for a fact, as I’ve had a fifth grader read posts that I’ve generated, that were similar to what I’ve done here. That fifth grader had no problems understanding my posts. ”
Hmmmmmm.
It’s late, I don’t have time to write down the many jokes that come to mind, but thanks for the straight line. Besides, most of the folks here have at least as good a sense of humor as me and can supply their own gags.
I may, however, return to this passage later, as it really tickles me.
“Meaning, I only engage in debates where I win.”
LOL. Yep. A bully. And
no principles of his own except winning.
timactual: LOL. Yep. A bully. And no principles of his own except winning.
Engaging in debates where I have extensive knowledge on the topic compared to the lack of it on the opposition’s part is akin to forcing the opposition to enter a gun fight armed only with a spork.
Are you open to entering a gun fight armed only with a plastic spork? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this question to your response, place an “X” in the box that represents your response, and spare me any additional answer that you would want to add. Your failure to answer this yes/no question per the parameters that I set will result in this question being asked again among my next batch of replies to you.
timactual: Hmmmmmm.
Filler, gotta give your noggin a chance to come up with something to say…
timactual: It’s late, I don’t have time to write down the many jokes that come to mind, but thanks for the straight line.
Bluff. What’s really happening is that your ego is in overdrive and that in combination with your anger and control issues, you have to come up with something to say instead of having the integrity to not say anything at all given the deterioration you’ve demonstrated in the trend of your comments.
timactual: Besides, most of the folks here have at least as good a sense of humor as me and can supply their own gags.
The tone that you’re showing does not reflect a sense of humor, but the actions of someone with anger issues, ego issues, and control issues.
timactual: I may, however, return to this passage later, as it really tickles me.
You do that. I have the rest of my natural life to keep hammering you every time you respond.
Amazing. You really have no sense of humor at all, do you? Everything is literal, no double entendre, no puns, no wordplay at all. You must have had a real hard time in literature classes.
timacutal: Amazing. You really have no sense of humor at all, do you? Everything is literal, no double entendre, no puns, no wordplay at all. You must have had a real hard time in literature classes.
Except, this is not what is applicable in this argument. What your side of the argument is doing is attempting to fabricate an argument, a.k.a. build a strawman, and then attempting to apply that to me. You guys are doing this as a substitute instead of actually dealing with what I argued. My refusing to play along with that does not constitute a “lack of humor.” It constitutes my holding your feet to the fire.
Your ego pushed you beyond your mental exhaustion, you stubbornly wanted to say something when common sense dictated that you needed to get some rest. Anger, frustration, adrenaline, etc., tends to do that. Have the integrity to look in the mirror to find fault instead of trying to find it with the one destroying your argument.
Understand that I take sadistic pleasure with destroying the opposition’s arguments and watching your reactions. If only you could see/hear me laughing at some of the things I’ve said to you guys, and anticipating what you guys would say in response.
Nope, I did not have a hard time in literature classes, I excelled in those as well, easy As. I also read the entire Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, more than once. It is jampacked with metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc. An understanding of the use of these metaphors in scripture tends to also increase understanding of literature across the board, not just the traditional literature taught in school, but with modern books and movies as well.
My enjoyment with proving you wrong is such that I generated the attached totem meme to show you my understanding of literature, contrary to your assumptions.
The ambiguity I was referring to was not in accusing you of being a warmonger; the direct accusation was of you “pounding on your war drum” and “warmonger” was only raised analogously in a quote – not even directly aimed at you (you would be Nikki Haley in that analogy). Encouraging materiel support for one faction in a war IS calling for involvement in that war on a real level and, historically, often leads to direct commitment of troops; a clarion call analogous to the war drum. The Lusitania, for example, was carrying ammo to resupply the British. History also suggests you might be right and that delaying support (or delaying outright action) simply prolongs a fight that will get more challenging with each passing day – but that’s not the issue, here.
The ambiguity is your suggestion that aGrim is not truly understanding what you’re saying: “aGrim: Perhaps, if you read my articles and posts with the intention of understanding what I’m actually saying, you would not be concluding that I’m “incessantly pounding my war drum.”
Simply insisting he re-read what you wrote rather than elaborating your point is, by academic convention, a failure on your part to accurately convey your argument.
Tangential (but still relevant), while you didn’t directly “ask” for opinions, you knowingly and willfully posted on a site that both allows commentary and has a very active pool of commenters. Tacitly, you invited opinions.
We can table your reliance on ad hominem fallacy for another time.
As for downvotes… who honestly gives a shit?
Response to Hate_me, September 12, 2023, Part 1A
Pounding the war drum is akin to being called a warmonger. Providing material to one side of the war is not involvement in a war. One has to be involved in the theater, sending rounds downrange, operating logistics trains within the theater, directing their own human and material assets from outside, etc., to be involved with the war. Even neutral nations trade and send goods to countries that are involved in conflict. Your definition of war involvement would imply that these neutral nations are involved in the war despite their being neutral. The Russians supported the American Revolution without being directly involved in the war itself.
This does not always lead to direct involvement of troops. The RMS Lusitania was a British registered ship, it was registered to a country that was directly involved in war against the country that sunk it. Not applicable to what the US is doing, sending supplies to staging areas within a NATO country, where they’re picked up for movement into Ukraine. The Russians would have to strike into NATO territory to have a comparison to your scenario.
What is happening here is what is described in the article above. Delaying the needed supplies contributes to prolonging the conflict, I’m seeing that when I’m viewing daily updates from the front.
Again, my argument that aGrim reread my article with the intention of understanding what I’m saying is applicable. The fact exists that I don’t have to elaborate on what I said above, as I’ve provided more than sufficient enough information for people to conclude that I’m not beating the war drum/being a warmonger.
Yes, the Lusitania was a British vessel; it was carrying American resupply to support them in their war.
It is absolutely applicable to “what the US is doing, sending supplies to staging areas within a NATO country, where they’re picked up for movement into Ukraine.”
Hate_me: Yes, the Lusitania was a British vessel; it was carrying American resupply to support them in their war.
Into areas declared by the German government as a “war zone.” The Russians have not declared the Atlantic Ocean, Western Europe/NATO, or the airspace above those areas, as a part of the “war zone” where shipping and other traffic is subject to attack. Their declared warzone centers on Ukraine, and maritime routes that lead to and out of Ukrainian commercial and military ports.
The UK and Germany were actively at war with each other at that time.
Hate_me: It is absolutely applicable to “what the US is doing, sending supplies to staging areas within a NATO country, where they’re picked up for movement into Ukraine.”
It is absolutely not applicable to what the U.S. is currently doing. The United States is sending supplies via international air space outside of the declared war zone areas. The start and end point of these transits are not combatant nations to the Russo-Ukraine war. The Russians have declared that shipping traveling specific areas in the maritime areas adjacent to Ukraine are subject to interception. They have made no similar declaration regarding air or sea traffic towards noncombatant nations. However, the Russians did declare that any western assets seen moving IN Ukraine are legitimate targets. There is no comparison contrary to what you erroneously assume.
Response to Hate_me, September 12, 2023, Part 2A
No, that’s NOT an academic convention defining “failure” on my part. I accurately conveyed my argument, I did more than what I needed to do. aGrim failed to understand my argument. This isn’t the first time I’ve argued against aGrim, there is a pattern of his reacting a specific way when I provide evidence that the Russians are not fairing too well.
My knowingly posting on a forum that allows comments is a strawman argument. Again, I was accused of something I was not doing. I provided an accurate counter rebuttal, dismissed by others as “inviting opinion then insulting those that provided the opinion”. Not once did anybody in the opposition deal with that counter rebuttal other than advance a strawman argument about “inviting opinion then attacking those that provided it.”
Hate_me: We can table your reliance on ad hominem fallacy for another time.
Saying that I generate my posts so that even a fifth grader could understand what I’m saying, and then posting a meme describing what people are doing, are not “ad hominem”. It’s not my fault that people have reading comprehension problems, influenced by their responding to me while driven by anger issues, control issues, ego issues, etc. The meme illustrates what I’m seeing among the opposition.
The real ad hominem is the claim that I invited opinion, then attacked those that provided the opinion, ignoring the fact that I provided a counter rebuttal that accurately described what my intentions were, just to mention a few.
The cold hard reality is that there is an absence of fact, reason, and logic coming from my opposition on this thread, consistent with what I’ve found in nearly 2 decades (in a few days) of debating against the opposition elsewhere.
“Tacitly…”
Uh oh. Let’s hope he knows how to use a dictionary, I am pretty sure that word is not in his vocabulary..
timactual: Uh oh. Let’s hope he knows how to use a dictionary, I am pretty sure that word is not in his vocabulary.
That word is in my vocabulary, and his use of it isn’t applicable to my situation. It was a strawman argument. It misses the fact that I was defending myself from accusations of doing something I know for fact that I didn’t do. Instead of addressing that defense, your side of the argument pulled strawman arguments, and desperately clung to those strawman arguments instead of having the integrity to own up to having an erroneous argument. As usual, your side of the argument tries to “argue your way to being right” to make up for the fact that you’re spectacularly incorrect.
He also has no idea what an ad hominem is, apparently.
Hate_me: He also has no idea what an ad hominem is, apparently.
I have an idea of what ad hominem is, you’re using it here. Unfortunately, you have no idea of the hypocrisy you demonstrate when you resort to using ad hominem. But again, you have absolutely no idea how spectacularly incorrect you are in our current argument as you have been in our previous argument. Ego has worked you over similar to how alcohol works drunk people over. You have an overinflated sense of how you are performing in this argument.
Along with “tacit,” you may wish to investigate the term “hyperbole.”
Hate_me: Along with “tacit,” you may wish to investigate the term “hyperbole.”
I knew what both meant, long before I knew that you existed. Your assumptions, as well as those of those I’m arguing against, of “exaggerating” or “distorting” things vice being serious is pure nonsense. You, and the others on your side of the argument, would much rather tap dance when called out instead of coming to terms with the fact that you guys don’t have a real argument. You guys continue to demonstrate having anger issues, control issues, and ego issues.
I stand corrected in that you did not ask for any opinions but only invited clarification from aGrim, which is why I prefaced by saying I wasn’t him and then offered an opinion. I could amend my comment to say so.
What came from aGrim was not a clarification, but a comment that completely missed the mark regarding both what I said and what I intended. Nothing in the blog article above, or in the trend of comments I’ve made on this topic, provides any material that would lead someone to infer that I’m a “warmonger” itching for a fight.
I had occasion to spend a (fortunately) brief time in a surgical ward in RVN. The medical personnel don’t get the praise and aren’t as “glamorous” as field medics (who deserve all the praise and respect they can handle), but they also did, and still do, a difficult and unpleasant job and deserve honor and respect. My thanks and best wishes to all med. personnel, from inf. co. to evac. hospitals to rehabilitation center, from bedpan operator to surgical team.
“I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.”
William T. Sherman
Be fair, while I respect them to no end, the bedpan operator’s job is to have shit shot in their direction.
I got a pretty simplistic outlook. Russia is our enemy. It is better to have Ukrainians and Russians doing the fighting and dying than to have our people fighting and dying. The longer this goes on, the weaker our enemy gets.
“Russia is our enemy.”
Why?
Pretty much this.
While I see the logic, history shows that a proxy approach to warfare is flawed unless one commits to direct confrontation at the opportune moment.
Proxy war alone is senseless death. Proxy war, long-term, can be successful strategy (if a bit ghoulish). It also takes time that a 4-8yr regime system simply cannot afford.
Everyone’s experiences, like their opinions are different. I respect them all, even if I don’t agree with them.
That stated, aGrim shared part of the story behind his disagreement with warmongering. I’ll share mine, though it’s nowhere near as graphic.
From 2004-2008 my team buried hundreds in Arlington. Section 60 is particularly tough, as sometimes the parents were in their 30s watching their teenaged boy receiving Final Honors.
What required perhaps even more ability to control our emotions were the Dignified Transfer of Remains ceremonies at Dover. I think the most my team got were 17 or was it 14? We never had to call upon the Navy, but Marine team was there more often than not. The number of those brought home determines the level of support from the sister services. Transfer cases are heavy and knowing that not long before the heroes lying in them were smoking and joking with their buddies, full of life and looking forward to the day they got home, takes a toll.
By Afghanistan in 2013, it didn’t matter. Rocket attack on Shank? Well, I’ll toss on my armor, grab my carbine, and walk to the bunker. No sense dying tired. A couple of 10th Mountain Aviators were killed within a few days of arriving in 2013, and just before I moved to RC-East, a bus stop at BAF was hit by a rocket strike, killing four.
Modern war requires little, if any, sacrifice from those who sit in their big offices watching it on TV and reaping in profits. It imposes little on the average American who complains about gas prices and politics, at least unless that average American has flesh in the game. Modern war can see either a high-tech drone or a jury-rigged IED kill a highly trained operative who never saw it coming.
“My” war in Iraq 2000 was what I envisioned war to be as an idealistic and patriotic young man. We went in with overwhelming force to fight a mostly conventional war against what was purported to be one of the most powerful armies on the planet. We lost few, got our baubles, and came home to a parade and the gratitude of most Americans. I still have the challenge coin Petreaus presented the 101st for “Excellence in Combat”, as well as one from the “Grateful Citizens of Hopkinsville” presented upon our return. As the wars escalated and the funerals rose in number, I wanted back into the fight. That didn’t happen, and instead I was sent to find younger men and women to go risk death for our government. By now it was against a cowardly “insurgency” who had nonetheless learned ways to defeat our much better trained, equipped, and by 2008, heavily armored forces. By the time I went to Afghanistan, 10 years after I boarded that plane to Kuwait in February 2003, I was no longer part of the fight. I was one of those “report and monitor” JOC types, watching the war on the big screen, updating TICs and SIGACTS, and giving my shift change briefs. I was an observer, unable to do anything other than passing info up the chain from my brigade to MG McConnville (now ACS and one of those in the big offices). Frankly, while I agree that the enemy of my enemy is my friend to an extent, that doesn’t mean that my money should go to that enemy of an enemy. That worked well for us in the 1940s, didn’t it? We helped China despite knowing that the Communists and Nationalists were only tenuously working together to defeat a common enemy in Japan. Five years later, more Americans are dying in Asia, this time at the hands of Chinese forces we once loosely allied ourselves with. Let the Ukrainians and Russians slug it out. Maybe those actually making the sacrifices will eventually realize that the blood they shed enables the big… Read more »
Thanks for sharing your memories. Vivid and painful, aren’t they? With the exception of my 50+ year bride, this is the first time I’ve shared these memories with anyone. My uncle was in the Pearl Harbor attack and not once spoke of it. I fully understand why.
“Thanks for sharing your memories.”
Same same. Saying I “enjoyed” them would be a bit strange, eh? Appreciate would probably be a better choice of words.
Agreed. I’m but a kind of, almost, well not really anonymous long-time commenter on this site. I used my old AKO email address until near retirement, so anyone with admin access probably knows my name. Otherwise, I don’t advertise. I did a job, was fortunate not to have been “knee deep in the Shiite” and have some fond memories and a very few outstanding pictures.
As I stated earlier, we all have our unique experiences and those help us to form our opinions. My story is mine, shared in fragments by those I had the privilege of serving alongside, be they some of those I served alongside mentioned by name in this article, Rakkasan (esquire.com); the Casket and DTR Teams I served on as Team Leader and later NCOIC; those who had to put with me “fighting the good fight” in lieu of actually fighting, by arguing regulations with those being awarded CIBs for indirect fire in Afghanistan; or any of those who knew me as a reluctant but professional and duty-driven NCO doing my two tours in TRADOC.
I appreciate it when stories are shared, but we must all remember that pain is in the eye of the beholder. Before I get too dark, I’ll just bring up this:
(2) I’m Gonna Git You Sucka -I was a Inter Military Administrator too-We’ll I’ll be damn a Secretary-80s – YouTube
Oh, and note the MDW patch…dammit! 😂
Another reason I favor conscription. If there’s a game, everybody should have skin in the game.
I used to live in Arlington and walk to Ft. Myer three or four times a week, through the cemetery. Pre-Vietnam, so it wasn’t very busy, but it was still impressive.
Whenever I see the word conscription, I like to point out that the dictionary makes no distinction between it and the word draft. Too many do not realize that the US has conscripted soldiers since before the American Revolution.
If Vietnam proved anything, it was that the privileged don’t have to worry about conscription.
The rich and powerful always find a way to circumvent being exposed to having to give that last full measure, if they choose to do so. Some of us were proud to carry a rifle in combat, but many of our peers thought we were chumps. I am glad I wasn’t one of those peers.
Wasn’t there some kind of iconic song recorded during the Vietnam War about this? I think it’s by some band called Cleedance Crearwater Verival or something. I don’t know, it’s been years since I saw John Fogerty at the Virginia Beach Arena. That, and the secondary high from all the Willie Nelson fans hasn’t worn off.
Hear you go, fm2176
Fogerty ETS’d before the war, so he’s not the best judge.
Great song, regardless.
How about Country Joe and the Fish?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9c10xmVCI
Fortunate Son. It was supposed to be about the Eisenhowers, but also ended up being a about a lot of other people.
To all, hopefully you could sense the facetiousness of my post. Regardless of one’s thoughts on any particular band or its members, there are certain songs that are eponymous with various wars, and eras for that matter. “Fortunate Son”, “I Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die Rag”, and others. Hell, I used to listen to the Woodstock Soundtrack a lot 30 years ago, and between that and my love of The Doors, I felt like I was born about 25 years too late.
Certain movies have only served to further identify music with wars. Hamburger Hill, Full Metal Jacket, and too many others to list.
For better or worse, my generation got “Bodies” by Drowning Pool. 🤓
There’s a piano bar in Monterey where the pianist (hehe… pianist…) covers all kinds of pop & rock songs.
Every time I requested “I Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die Rag,” he felt the need to apologize to the entire restaurant before he performed it. As if we’d ever let any INTEL trainee who took issue get anywhere near him.
Every single joe/vet in the place loved it when he sang that song.
True. Instead we rely on the privileged’s(?) sense of Noblesse Oblige. That’s why all the males in the British royal family usually have some kind of military experience. Aristocracy has its good side. Unfortunately, in our egalitarian Republic, our privileged class concentrates on the Noblesse and ignores the Oblige.
The Cemetery only keeps growing. When I reported in 2004 the Columbarium had just been expanded. While I was there the old Navy Annex (I think that’s what it was called) was razed to make space for an expansion. When I reported back in 2018 the old picnic area by the ASP (where PSB would do their mortar training) was gone, would becoming the Millenium Project. I had the honor of standing Vigil for the two Civil War Unknowns who were first to be buried in that section.
But, I agree, everyone should have some skin in the game. Throughout American history, you see prominent politicians who served and whose own children are not hesitant to do their part. I might be wrong, but it seems that the Greatest Generation is one of the last of those, with people like Bush ’41 having quite the harrowing experience in WWII and Bush ’43 serving stateside during Vietnam. Oh, never mind, I forget that Beau Biden died in Iraq. Silly me.
Burn pits killed Beau. Good thing his ‘vette wasn’t in theatre at the time.
I like the idea of conscription from a civics perspective.
I don’t like it from a military efficiency one. In my experience, the best soldiers are the ones who want to be there and the worst leaders are the ones who don’t give a damn about the mission.
If everyone, upon graduating from high school, were forced to join either the military or the peace corps…. I’d love that as a policy but cannot say I support it in principle. It seems anathema to every principle on which this nation was built.
Interesting stats: 25% of Vietnam soldiers were conscripts, the rest were volunteers. 66% of WWII soldiers were conscripts.
Touché. There’s definitely more nuance to it.
“Russia’s air force could carry out major bombing campaigns in the virtual absence of air defenses. In other words, these conflicts said little about how Russian forces would perform in a conventional land war against a resolute and well-armed enemy.”
“U.S. military experts have long given too much focus to weapons systems and new technology in…”
Let’s not forget that that also applies to the US. We have not had “a resolute and well-armed enemy” since Vietnam, and that was not a very inspiring (for us) example.
Guess you weren’t following the Afghanistan war as closely as you thought. We lost that one too.
I didn’t follow Afghanistan very closely. Too depressing, and I didn’t need to–I followed Vietnam and a few other previous wars more closely, so, deja vu.
What was not inspiring was the way the democrats pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese with regard to supplies and air power.
I thought the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a good reminder though.
If Ukraine is capturing all these Russian tanks, why do they need ours?
Maybe because US politicians are saying to the Ukies, “Tank you very much for sharing your corruption”? Bada-bada-boom. Tip your waitress. 🙂
Having a high speed and low drag tank is not of much value with the troops that have to use it have no clue about it. Really, one year enlistments?
détente
dā-tänt′, -täɴt′
noun
If they won’t, maybe we should?
Trust me, I am enjoying this but littering isn’t a victimless crime, or something.
Here we go again.
2 days after this VG article,
new screenshot of RECENT COMMENTS:
KoB, thebesig, Odie, thebesig, Odie, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, thebesig, Green Thumb, thebesig.
Isn’t wisdom best displayed,
when showing the ability to express a viewpoint with the fewest words?
Shhh. He’ll hear you and you’ll be next. It’s not about expressing a viewpoint. It’s about winning the argument.
SFC D: Shhh. He’ll hear you and you’ll be next. It’s not about expressing a viewpoint. It’s about winning the argument.
In order to have an argument, there has to be at least two opposing viewpoints. Online debating is one of my hobbies, I’ve been doing it for nearly 20 years. How could I do this if everybody agrees with me? Opposing viewpoints is not an issue, my disagreement with people is not “discouraging” or “shutting down” opposing viewpoints. Anybody that thinks that’s what I’m doing is subconsciously admitting that they have no argument and expressing such argument would result in a blistering fact check scrutiny.
If you’re going to engage in an argument, at least know more about the topic than the person that you’re arguing against. The opposition is lacking in this department. Every single last one of you who have argued against me here, as well as those that have argued against me in the past, have demonstrated ego issues, control issues, and anger issues, a profile that I leverage in my responses.
If only you guys could see me laughing at what I’ve said to you guys, even hours after I posted it. You guys keep falling for my tactics hook, line, and sinker.
You’re like a little windup toy, spinning in circles. A puppy chasing its tail, all the while thinking you’re the one doing the winding. Nobody’s butthurt. We’re watching you spin and laughing. You’re easier to wind up than the Commissar. Have yourself a fine evening.
SFC D: You’re like a little windup toy, spinning in circles. A puppy chasing its tail, all the while thinking you’re the one doing the winding. Nobody’s butthurt. We’re watching you spin and laughing. You’re easier to wind up than the Commissar. Have yourself a fine evening.
Nonsense. I’ve lost count, over nearly 20 years of arguing against people like you online, when people said something similar to what you said after I explained what I was doing. After I explained the fact that every word, sentence, paragraph, etc., was intended to get the opposition to react in a specific way, their reaction is narcissistic… Claiming that they were also doing the same thing.
But that is not what is happening here. No, this is not a case of you guys trying to “wind me up.” This is a case of guys being driven by ego issues, control issues, and anger issues. You guys have the urge to fight back, no matter how much your subconscious is telling you guys that you guys are in the wrong. Your reactions are exactly as I have seen from those who are narcissistic, who continued to argue driven by their ego.
You guys are just like the phonies that I hammered in a similar way. Every one of you who are arguing with me on this thread remind me of Blobfish’s argument. Some of you have even said the same thing he has said. Like him, you guys are driven by anger, ego, and control issues.
I’m the only one that is having a great time, you guys not so much.
If you insist you’re having a great time (and I genuinely hope you are), I believe yoy.
Your assumption that the rest of us are not having fun playing organ grinder, however, is utterly wrong. Now dance, monkey!
Damned autocorrect.
Hate_me: If you insist you’re having a great time (and I genuinely hope you are), I believe yoy.
No need to hope that I am. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your arguments, and then watching you guys react to it. I am having a great time, otherwise why would I have been doing this for nearly 20 years?
Hate_me: Your assumption that the rest of us are not having fun playing organ grinder, however, is utterly wrong.
Not an assumption, but a statement of fact based not only on the predictable actions of those that I’m arguing against, but on what you guys are saying. I could tell, by your conduct on this thread as well as that of others, that you guys can’t read my posts, or deal with an argument with me, without blood rushing through your veins.
Nope, you guys are not having fun, that’s just ego speaking. I’m the only one that is having a great time in this argument.
Hate_me: Now dance, monkey!
Coming from you, that was said driven by ego and motivated by frustration/anger. Your ego intoxication is such that like a drunk person not knowing that he is acting like a fool, you’ve been reduced to sounding like Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob.
Yet, still you dance.
Hate_me: Yet, still you dance.
That’s what your pride wants you to believe. The reality, however, is that you’re the one that’s dancing.
Oh?
PS: Your responses kind of proved my point. Thank you for taking the bait.
SFC D: PS: Your responses kind of proved my point. Thank you for taking the bait.
That is not correct. Predicting that I will respond to you based on what you said is pure nonsense. Predicting that I would come back and say something is like predicting that daytime will follow nighttime, and nighttime will follow daytime. I have already established a track record here that could be summed up in this model:
Let X be your response… Let Y be my counter response… Thus, if X, then Y. Providing an X, then predicting a Y references this past track record. It has nothing to do with your doing precisely what I have done against you guys, and against others like you over the past nearly 20 years of my doing this.
The reality is that you guys consistently take my bait. For my plan to work, the opposition has to be driven by anger issues, ego issues, and control issues.
“The reality is that you guys consistently take my bait. For my plan to work, the opposition has to be driven by anger issues, ego issues, and control issues”
That could possibly be your reality. I just love winding you up. It’s that simple. It’s like a good game of skittles. Pull the string and watch the top carom around the table. There’s no “control” involved. Just random bouncing. Enjoy your day.
SFC D: That could possibly be your reality.
What I described is what is actually happening, no matter how your ego sees otherwise.
SFC D: I just love winding you up.
Nope, your responses are driven by ego issues, control issues, and anger issues. You’re reacting exactly as someone reacts when their being taken apart gets under their skin.
SFC D: It’s that simple.
In your mind, but not with reality.
SFC D: It’s like a good game of skittles. Pull the string and watch the top carom around the table. There’s no “control” involved. Just random bouncing.
Except, that’s not what’s happening on my end, but with you. You come across as Baghdad Bob did in 2003 with your claims that I’m “getting spun up”, which isn’t what is happening. Again, I take sadistic pleasure with taking arguments like yours apart, and then watching your reactions.
SFC D: Enjoy your day.
I am, and I’m enhancing that enjoyment by getting you to react as I’d expect you to react. It speaks volumes when you’ve been reduced to repeating yourself like a broken record.
So… you’re the dependent variable in this equation and not actually the one tossing out bait?
Hate_me: So… you’re the dependent variable in this equation and not actually the one tossing out bait?
Two separate concepts. The “if X then Y” describes this debate. The opposition’s rebuttals get my counter rebuttals. The “Y” consists of the argument proving the opposition wrong, and is generated in a way that would get the opposition to react a specific way.
Your assumption attempts to compare “if X then Y” to “Y”, as in, “if X then Y” = “Y”, which is purely nonsense.
Let’s try to do this at the fifth-grade education level, as you’ve claimed that’s your baseline….
It’s been a while, but I believe it’s an idiom dealing with rubber and glue… help me out, here.
Yeah, I think “tacit” is probably not a fifth grade vocabulary word.
The state of the American education system is a rabbit hole I’d prefer to avoid, at this point.
Hate_me: Let’s try to do this at the fifth-grade education level, as you’ve claimed that’s your baseline…. It’s been a while, but I believe it’s an idiom dealing with rubber and glue… help me out, here.
Not applicable to my situation. You are viewing our argument via ego filters. My description of you is based on your actions on these threads. When I could voice words, sentences, paragraphs, or even include images, in my posts, and have a good idea of how you would react before I see your reaction, then we have a situation to where I could accurately point out things about you. It is your ego that wants to assume that what I am saying about you is applicable to me. That is pure nonsense. Also, what I state regarding my actions are not “claims” but statements of fact.
“Every single last one of you who have argued against me here, as well as those that have argued against me in the past, have demonstrated ego issues, control issues, and anger issues, a profile that I leverage in my responses. ”
Hmmmm.
Are those ball bearings I see in your hand?
timactual: Hmmmm. Are those ball bearings I see in your hand?
That movie scene is not applicable here. All I’m doing is describing a pattern that I have seen with the guys, as well as others I’ve argued against over the past nearly 2 decades. When I could say words, sentences, paragraphs, attach images, etc., expecting you guys to react a certain way, and then you guys react as I suspect, I’m not making things up. I’m simply describing reality. People with anger issues, control issues, and ego issues, will react a specific way to what I say. You guys consistently act the way I expect you guys to act given the nature of my responses to you guys. You guys have been predictable, and your reactions are explainable.
MarineDad61: Isn’t wisdom best displayed, when showing the ability to express a viewpoint with the fewest words?
Wisdom is looking at the complete picture of what is going on, instead of demonstrating bias against one side, something that you failed to do here. Had you looked at the complete picture, without bias, you’d notice that I was responding to multiple responses to me. The nature of my counter rebuttals hinges on what is said that is being rebutted.
There is no wisdom in a person who, having little to no knowledge on the topic being debated, opts to argue that very topic against someone who has extensive knowledge of that topic.
Wisdom is seeing an “If x, then y” pattern, then avoiding supplying an “x” in the process if “y” is going to be an issue.
Of course, the more prone a person is to having anger issues, control issues, and ego issues, as I’m seeing with those that I argue against, the less likely they’re going to embrace wisdom.
In the nearly 20 years I’ve argued against the left, the only people that have complained about the number of words I’ve used in debate are the ones who oppose me. I’ve had situations, during this time, where those who were against me, who advanced the same complaints you’ve advanced here, had changed their tone when I did the exact same thing in a debate we were allied in. Nope, not “You are way to wordy, less is more, more is less, etc.” but, “That was a well thought out, logical, reasoned, etc., argument.” Heck, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen someone who complained about my verbiage, who turned around and used a lot of verbiage in another argument with someone else.
The attached image explains why I’m using the verbiage I’m using.
“There is no wisdom in a person who, having little to no knowledge on the topic being debated, opts to argue that very topic against someone who has extensive knowledge of that topic”
Oh, I don’t know. I have found that arguing with people who know more than me can be a learning experience. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that. Not from you, of course.
timactual: Oh, I don’t know. I have found that arguing with people who know more than me can be a learning experience. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis and all that. Not from you, of course.
Except, your statement about what you do would do is inconsistent with what you actually do. Your conduct on this thread indicates that if you are proven wrong, consideration of the other person’s expertise goes out the window in your mind. The only thing that matters is that you are proven wrong, and that you are not going to “take it.” Instead, you’re going to fight back and try to “argue your way into being right.”
It speaks volumes when you completely ignore the sections of my posts that destroy your argument, quote something else out of context, and then provide a nonsense response you would not make if you had to acknowledge the part that you ignored because it proved you wrong.
You mean, like, “Brevity is the soul of wit”?
Polonius (Hamlet, Act II)
timactual: You mean, like, “Brevity is the soul of wit”? Polonius (Hamlet, Act II)
Not applicable to this thread, specifically with my actions. The demand that I reduce my verbiage has everything to do with the opposition having bruised egos due to having an extensive argument made against their nonsense. It has nothing to do with “less is more”.
Not so much that but some of us are in a hurry. Keep it brief dude.
USMC Steve: Not so much that but some of us are in a hurry. Keep it brief dude.
Again, not applicable to what I’m doing here. As I’ve told the others who have demanded the same thing in nearly 20 years of my doing this, my post length is dependent on the rebuttal that is needed.
Also, do folks in a hurry really need to be reading threads, or even responding to them? That last thing in my mind, while in a hurry, is reading and responding to threads.
Conversational Competence is probably the most under developed social skill we should practice. Being a Contrarian is not a fault until it becomes so abrasive everyone else leaves the island… Most particularly, when its not your island to start with.