Why Are We in Ukraine?

412,812 Views | 6268 Replies | Last: 21 min ago by The_barBEARian
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Realitybites said:

Quote:

LOL. Afghanistan, the jewel in the crown! He who owns it rules the world!!

Very funny

The Taliban are sitting on $1 trillion worth of minerals the world desperately needs

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html




I am starting to suspect that Afghanistans minerals and the ability to have USA military bases stationed in Central Asia (Russia, Iran, & China in striking distance) was the real reason our soldiers were kept there so long….













I hope so. That makes sense. Staying 20 years for "Nation building" without benefit bothers me more than being there



If DC and the political class would have just leveled with the American people about the economic and strategic importance of Afghanistan.

And given us a realistic plan of how to pacify the country.

The American people might have agreed to stay.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

FLBear5630 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Realitybites said:

Quote:

LOL. Afghanistan, the jewel in the crown! He who owns it rules the world!!

Very funny

The Taliban are sitting on $1 trillion worth of minerals the world desperately needs

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html




I am starting to suspect that Afghanistans minerals and the ability to have USA military bases stationed in Central Asia (Russia, Iran, & China in striking distance) was the real reason our soldiers were kept there so long….













I hope so. That makes sense. Staying 20 years for "Nation building" without benefit bothers me more than being there



If DC and the political class would have just leveled with the American people about the economic and strategic importance of Afghanistan.

And given is a realistic plan of how to pacify the country.

The American people might have agreed to stay.


Can't argue with you there. Leadership at the time was probably still kicking from Iraq WMDs
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).
That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions. You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful. Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to domestic spending. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
I just want to know where you got $8 Trillion.

The Taliban was cooperating on a counter terrorism level which was the ultimate objective of this fighting (no friendly harbor states), but the Kandahar kooks have made some rumblings about jihad. We'll see if the Doha agreement gets chalked up as a Trump blunder, or if foreign money becomes too enticing to go back to the old Taliban.

Maybe we should use Russian logic and invade again on the threat alone. At least we have a track record of violence against us as justification…
If Afghanistan were on our border I'm sure we would.

$8 trillion is a conservative estimate of the total cost of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Sorry I may not have made that clear.
Proximity is irrelevant. Being an actual threat to your citizens is relevant.

You must be using the Brown study number, which is garbage. The entire defense and intelligence budget for all 20 years is $12-$13 Trillion and includes Veteran expenses. And even if you said every Homeland security dollar goes to these conflicts it still wouldn't touch that level. And how do you add Trillions in interest for expenditures not borrowed for?
The interest is for borrowing; not sure why you'd think otherwise. They didn't even count future interest, or who knows how high the figure would be.

Proximity is relevant to threat. They don't call it geopolitics for nothing.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:


Warmongers in 2022: "Just listen to Putin and take him at his word."

Warmongers in 2023: "Just listen to Putin and take him at his word."

Warmongers in 2024: "Don't listen to Putin!!!"
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:


Warmongers in 2022: "Just listen to Putin and take him at his word."

Warmongers in 2023: "Just listen to Putin and take him at his word."

Warmongers in 2024: "Don't listen to Putin!!!"


The only warmongers here are ones pushing RU propaganda like you.

And I'm sorry you don't understand how RU propaganda works.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).
That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade

And now they are back in power.

I am all for a Barbary pirates way of dealing with enemies....swooping in and punishing the enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

But that is not what we did....we hung around and tried to nation build for 20 years and spent $2.3 trillion dollars and cost the lives of 5,000+ coalition soldiers

That is the problem with DC....they demand to try and nation build in the 3rd world and spend vast amounts of cash...and push modern progressive social values at the same time that never really work out.


We really don't care who is in power in Afghanistan, do we? All we want is for them to stay out of the affairs of us and our allies. As long as they host or support no terror groups attacking us or allies, what else would we expect?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:


That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions.
Pointing out the faulty premises of your arguments is not "misunderstanding Ukraine." It means that the Meirsheimer Argument, while conventional and based on many geopolitical realities, has been misapplied to the situation, resulting in a de facto appeasement policy which would be disastrous for our interests.

You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.
Dude, I was staring Al Qaeda members in the eyeballs while you were wearing diapers. Literally, arms reach, verbal interaction. The first raw intelligence reports using the words "Al Qaeda" (the base) were released from the field under my name. (Hqs was quite bemused at the term, too. Had no frame of reference against which to analyze it.) Please do not think you understand what you are talking about.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful.
LOL We are still here, not bankrupt, while BL is sleeping with the fishes of the Indian Ocean. Do you live in an imaginary world all the time, or just when you come to this forum?

Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.
Dude, we destroyed the AQ organization which attacked us, leaf to stem, and we kept the Taliban hiding in mountain caves for two decades. We could have kept at it for a century, too. And the Taliban knows that. That's called "imposing our will." (and not just imposing our will, but doing so in one of the most inaccessible places on the globe). We educated a couple of generations of THEIR children, allowed THEIR women to choose their own wardrobe and walk alone in public. Not only did Taliban have to watch that, they have to go undo all that. They will not mess with us for a good long while, because they don't want to repeat the indignity and be denied their business model, then have to spend another decade or so cleansing the minds of their peoples. Whatever can be said about our nation-building (which I am not a fan of), there is a brutally powerful Pavlovian message in what we did to Afghanistan, quickly, easily, and for what could have been forever.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to the domestic budget. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.
Not only do you not understand foreign policy, you do not understand Federal budgeting. Defense spending is discretionary; entitlements are non-discretionary. Meaning we can abate/accelerate one while the other is on escalatory autopilot. Moreover, you really should check the pie charts more closely. We could zero out the entire Defense budget - demobilize all the soldiers, close all the bases, let the ships rust at anchor.....and it won't matter. Literally, that alone would not balance the budget. No argument is more adolescent that one premised on the idea that defense spending drives deficits = comically underinformed.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
Yes, it was an embarrassment that it took so long to find BL
Yes, his death makes him a martyr.
Yes, the resolution strikes fear into the hearts of our adversaries.
Tthat there exists a nation so powerful that it can find anyone, anywhere, and has the resolve to spend the time and money to do it no matter how long it takes, and the willingness to even cross the borders to do raids in the cities of nominal allies, even in homes adjacent to foreign military bases.....that is sobering to any head of state. It means that if they cross certain lines with respect to sponsoring or even harboring enemies of the USA, they are facing a lifetime on the run for which the outcome is certain. No more hobnobbing with world leaders. No more mansions & private jets. NO more fanfare attends your every move. No more grafting govt spending and foreign aid into your Swiss bank account. No more Harvard or Oxford for your kids. Your grandkids will live in a mud hut, huddling in fear from the whomp-whomp of BlackHawk helicopters, while you hide lying prone and sweating in a hole on some random date farm hoping US soldiers fail to notice the disguised doorway to your ignominious accommodations.

Geez you are obtuse.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:


That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions.
Pointing out the faulty premises of your arguments is not "misunderstanding Ukraine." It means that the Meirsheimer Argument, while conventional and based on many geopolitical realities, has been misapplied to the situation, resulting in a de facto appeasement policy which would be disastrous for our interests.

You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.
Dude, I was staring Al Qaeda members in the eyeballs while you were wearing diapers. Literally, arms reach, verbal interaction. The first raw intelligence reports using the words "Al Qaeda" (the base) were released from the field under my name. (Hqs was quite bemused at the term, too. Had no frame of reference against which to analyze it.) Please do not think you understand what you are talking about.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful.
LOL We are still here, not bankrupt, while BL is sleeping with the fishes of the Indian Ocean. Do you live in an imaginary world all the time, or just when you come to this forum?

Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.
Dude, we destroyed the AQ organization which attacked us, leaf to stem, and we kept the Taliban hiding in mountain caves for two decades. We could have kept at it for a century, too. And the Taliban knows that. That's called "imposing our will." (and not just imposing our will, but doing so in one of the most inaccessible places on the globe). We educated a couple of generations of THEIR children, allowed THEIR women to choose their own wardrobe and walk alone in public. Not only did Taliban have to watch that, they have to go undo all that. They will not mess with us for a good long while, because they don't want to repeat the indignity and be denied their business model, then have to spend another decade or so cleansing the minds of their peoples. Whatever can be said about our nation-building (which I am not a fan of), there is a brutally powerful Pavlovian message in what we did to Afghanistan, quickly, easily, and for what could have been forever.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to the domestic budget. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.
Not only do you not understand foreign policy, you do not understand Federal budgeting. Defense spending is discretionary; entitlements are non-discretionary. Meaning we can abate/accelerate one while the other is on escalatory autopilot. Moreover, you really should check the pie charts more closely. We could zero out the entire Defense budget - demobilize all the soldiers, close all the bases, let the ships rust at anchor.....and it won't matter. Literally, that alone would not balance the budget. No argument is more adolescent that one premised on the idea that defense spending drives deficits = comically underinformed.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
Yes, it was an embarrassment that it took so long to find BL
Yes, his death makes him a martyr.
Yes, the resolution strikes fear into the hearts of our adversaries.
Tthat there exists a nation so powerful that it can find anyone, anywhere, and has the resolve to spend the time and money to do it no matter how long it takes, and the willingness to even cross the borders to do raids in the cities of nominal allies, even in homes adjacent to foreign military bases.....that is sobering to any head of state. It means that if they cross certain lines with respect to sponsoring or even harboring enemies of the USA, they are facing a lifetime on the run for which the outcome is certain. No more hobnobbing with world leaders. No more mansions & private jets. NO more fanfare attends your every move. No more grafting govt spending and foreign aid into your Swiss bank account. No more Harvard or Oxford for your kids. Your grandkids will live in a mud hut, huddling in fear from the whomp-whomp of BlackHawk helicopters, while you hide lying prone and seating in a hole on some random date farm hoping US soldiers fail to notice the disguised doorway to your ignominious accommodations.

Geez you are obtuse.
NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. DEFENSE. CUTS. ALONE. WILL. BALANCE. THE. BUDGET.

I understand that you have experience in intelligence work, and frankly I think it says a lot about what's gone wrong in the last few decades. People in that position take pride in being able to switch off their biases and report facts without ideology getting in the way. You seem to have little ability in this regard. Your analysis of the Russian military and society is not entirely without historical merit, but it reeks of prejudice and consistently fails to adapt to new information. Even now, after the wholly predictable failure of Ukraine's counter-offensive, you're still convinced that the Russian army is the same one you learned to sneer at back in the 1980s. It's not that I feel bad for them. I feel bad that our foreign policy is such a clown show. So I'm sorry, but bragging that you were one of the first guys to put on the rubber nose and jumbo boots doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

You probably have no use for a guy like Michael Scheuer, but I'd recommend his books and interviews if you want to know what a realistic assessment of the War on Terror looks like. The sad truth is that we've accomplished very little. Yes, the Taliban had to hide out in some caves for a while. That's what those caves are for. That's why they're still there and we're not. And notwithstanding all of this empty bravado, the mighty USA wasn't able to take them out at will. As for other heads of state, they already knew what we could do to them if they supported terrorists. What they know after the Iraq War is that we're liable to do it regardless. A big part of their incentive to cooperate died with Saddam Hussein. We're making the same mistake with Iran, whom we seem determined to make an active enemy even though they're the only real source of stability in what's left of Iraq.

That being said, I don't mean this post to be as rude as it probably sounds. You contribute a lot to the forum, and I'm sure you contributed a lot in your career as well. But just take a look back at your posts on this thread, man. If the crippling disadvantages faced by Ukraine were obvious to a layman, they should have been even more obvious to you.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).
That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions. You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful. Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to domestic spending. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
I just want to know where you got $8 Trillion.

The Taliban was cooperating on a counter terrorism level which was the ultimate objective of this fighting (no friendly harbor states), but the Kandahar kooks have made some rumblings about jihad. We'll see if the Doha agreement gets chalked up as a Trump blunder, or if foreign money becomes too enticing to go back to the old Taliban.

Maybe we should use Russian logic and invade again on the threat alone. At least we have a track record of violence against us as justification…
If Afghanistan were on our border I'm sure we would.

$8 trillion is a conservative estimate of the total cost of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Sorry I may not have made that clear.
Proximity is irrelevant. Being an actual threat to your citizens is relevant.

You must be using the Brown study number, which is garbage. The entire defense and intelligence budget for all 20 years is $12-$13 Trillion and includes Veteran expenses. And even if you said every Homeland security dollar goes to these conflicts it still wouldn't touch that level. And how do you add Trillions in interest for expenditures not borrowed for?
The interest is for borrowing; not sure why you'd think otherwise. They didn't even count future interest, or who knows how high the figure would be.

Proximity is relevant to threat. They don't call it geopolitics for nothing.
How much did we actually have to borrow to fund the wars? The actual budget shows over the 20 years, defense and intelligence spending went up steadily and sits at $350 billion a year more 20 years later. Meanwhile entitlement spend sits at nearly 3 Trillion more a year than 20 years ago (nearly a 3x increase). Individual benefit payments have more than doubled, and we've increased the number of retirees, and massively increased medical expenses. We had money to cover conflict escalation. We didn't and don't have the money to cover entitlement growth, and certainly not at the pace we've been on.

And geo refers to world, and geopolitical is global politics. Regionalism is something different.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The "geo" refers to the earth. It's about the intersection of politics and geography. This is essential to understanding Russia's interest in Ukraine, which is qualitatively different from ours.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).
That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions. You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful. Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to domestic spending. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
I just want to know where you got $8 Trillion.

The Taliban was cooperating on a counter terrorism level which was the ultimate objective of this fighting (no friendly harbor states), but the Kandahar kooks have made some rumblings about jihad. We'll see if the Doha agreement gets chalked up as a Trump blunder, or if foreign money becomes too enticing to go back to the old Taliban.

Maybe we should use Russian logic and invade again on the threat alone. At least we have a track record of violence against us as justification…
If Afghanistan were on our border I'm sure we would.

$8 trillion is a conservative estimate of the total cost of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Sorry I may not have made that clear.
Proximity is irrelevant. Being an actual threat to your citizens is relevant.

You must be using the Brown study number, which is garbage. The entire defense and intelligence budget for all 20 years is $12-$13 Trillion and includes Veteran expenses. And even if you said every Homeland security dollar goes to these conflicts it still wouldn't touch that level. And how do you add Trillions in interest for expenditures not borrowed for?
The interest is for borrowing; not sure why you'd think otherwise. They didn't even count future interest, or who knows how high the figure would be.

Proximity is relevant to threat. They don't call it geopolitics for nothing.
How much did we actually have to borrow to fund the wars? The actual budget shows over the 20 years, defense and intelligence spending went up steadily and sits at $350 billion a year more 20 years later. Meanwhile entitlement spend sits at nearly 3 Trillion more a year than 20 years ago (nearly a 3x increase). Individual benefit payments have more than doubled, and we've increased the number of retirees, and massively increased medical expenses. We had money to cover conflict escalation. We didn't and don't have the money to cover entitlement growth, and certainly not at the pace we've been on.

And geo refers to world, and geopolitical is global politics. Regionalism is something different.

Get your lies straight. Defense spending is nearly $1 trillion per year.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Using oligarch seems to be an effort to smear wealthy people one disagrees with. And I'm all for people spending lots of money on building yachts or homes. It's an actual economic activity with jobs, supplies, etc. versus asset transfer purchases.

Unlike actual oligarchs that purchased state assets at gigantic value discounts, or nothing at all in some cases using government loans from buddies like Putin to do so. Putin's one of the wealthiest men in the world thanks to his oligarch back doors into companies like Gazprom, which he helped consolidate by bankrupting competitors and imprisoning corporate leaders unfriendly to him (see Yukos).
That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions. You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful. Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to domestic spending. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
I just want to know where you got $8 Trillion.

The Taliban was cooperating on a counter terrorism level which was the ultimate objective of this fighting (no friendly harbor states), but the Kandahar kooks have made some rumblings about jihad. We'll see if the Doha agreement gets chalked up as a Trump blunder, or if foreign money becomes too enticing to go back to the old Taliban.

Maybe we should use Russian logic and invade again on the threat alone. At least we have a track record of violence against us as justification…
If Afghanistan were on our border I'm sure we would.

$8 trillion is a conservative estimate of the total cost of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Sorry I may not have made that clear.
Proximity is irrelevant. Being an actual threat to your citizens is relevant.

You must be using the Brown study number, which is garbage. The entire defense and intelligence budget for all 20 years is $12-$13 Trillion and includes Veteran expenses. And even if you said every Homeland security dollar goes to these conflicts it still wouldn't touch that level. And how do you add Trillions in interest for expenditures not borrowed for?
The interest is for borrowing; not sure why you'd think otherwise. They didn't even count future interest, or who knows how high the figure would be.

Proximity is relevant to threat. They don't call it geopolitics for nothing.
How much did we actually have to borrow to fund the wars? The actual budget shows over the 20 years, defense and intelligence spending went up steadily and sits at $350 billion a year more 20 years later. Meanwhile entitlement spend sits at nearly 3 Trillion more a year than 20 years ago (nearly a 3x increase). Individual benefit payments have more than doubled, and we've increased the number of retirees, and massively increased medical expenses. We had money to cover conflict escalation. We didn't and don't have the money to cover entitlement growth, and certainly not at the pace we've been on.

And geo refers to world, and geopolitical is global politics. Regionalism is something different.

Get your lies straight. Defense spending is nearly $1 trillion per year.
Learn to read you complete moron. I said that's how much MORE we're spending per year in defense compared to 20 years ago.

2002 -$400 Billion
2022 -$770 Billion.

Just like I said we've had a nearly 3x increase in entitlement spending in the last 20 years if you can't comprehend that basic idea.

2002 - $1.2 Trillion
2022 - $4 Trillion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_federal_budget

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_federal_budget
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:


That is essentially what we do, except we destroy entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands instead of just ruining a few competitors.
When was the last time the US killed hundreds of thousands or destroyed a whole Country? Name one Country that the US has been involved where the infrastructure, freedoms and education for everyone was worse after we left? Even Afghanistan was in better shape than we found it.
We did nothing to help Afghanistan. What I said here 20 years ago has proven correct. The Taliban are the only viable authority in that country, and they will wait as long as it takes for us to confront reality. Those of us who bought into the nation-building rhetoric will learn no lessons and suffer no immediate consequences. Afghans who made the same mistake will pay dearly for it.
you missed the point, entirely.

Yes, we are not good at nation-building. But we are incredibly good at nation-destroying. The Taliban knows they best not mess with us again, or we will very easily run their asses back up into the Hindu Kush and commence target practice. And if we're angry enough, we can pick any one of their leaders which strikes our fancy to chase thru the caves, down the mountains, across the plains, into the city, along the streets, to their front door which we will kick in and charge up three flights of stairs to barge into their bedroom to load them up with a few hundred 55gr FMJ 5.56 rounds the hard way,(in front of their wives & children, if circumstances permit), then duct tape a Bible to their bullet-ridden corpse and haul it off to some random grid square in the middle of the Indian Ocean for a midnight burial in a shroud sprinkled with pork chop scraps while a Rabbi sings the Star Spangled Banner over the ship's intercom. Man, nobody thinks getting us riled up is a good business model.

We just need to remember that deterrence does not require the defeated to adopt democracy. It just requires them to remember the lesson about 'effin' with Uncle Sam.


The point was that we didn't help Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, you really think they didn't expect a response? They headed for the hills and waited...and waited...while Dubya was busy prepping his ridiculous occupation.
who gives a flip about Afghanistan! The goal is not to rebuild them, it's to inflict a painful pavlovian lesson about what happens to people who provoke the mightiest nation in the world. 20 years of lost time & money - lost for pushing their islamist BS and using political power to reward themselves, friends, etc...

sitting in a cave getting pounded by MOABs is not a terribly good business model. It only took one bombing raid for Qaddafi to learn that lesson.

We reacted exactly as Bin Laden hoped we would. Even though he'd stated his plan repeatedly, we fell right into the trap.
yep. ran that trap all the way across the Hindu Kush, Pakistani plains, cities & neighborhoods, busted down his bedroom door and perforated his cowering ass a couple hundred times with FMJ in front of his wife & kids. Then we stayed around and pounded the Taliban for over a decade until we got tired of doing it and then left. Today, we are in a better position than we were when he walked the streets there, and are causing fits for both Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions with only a portion of the soft power available to us.

The only thing in a trap is your mind. It's upside down in a dark & smelly place and you can't seem to pull it out.

From time to time, you fail to consider the patent absurdity of your posts, and the problem is getting to be something of a habit.


Your posts should be required reading for anyone who's still naive enough to trust our foreign policy establishment. You've fundamentally misunderstood the Ukraine war in almost every way, resulting in spectacularly wrong predictions.
Pointing out the faulty premises of your arguments is not "misunderstanding Ukraine." It means that the Meirsheimer Argument, while conventional and based on many geopolitical realities, has been misapplied to the situation, resulting in a de facto appeasement policy which would be disastrous for our interests.

You've clearly given no more thought to Al Qaeda's strategy and motives than you have to Putin's. The poster who compared you to Toby Keith was doing Toby a disservice. His thinking was nuanced compared to yours.
Dude, I was staring Al Qaeda members in the eyeballs while you were wearing diapers. Literally, arms reach, verbal interaction. The first raw intelligence reports using the words "Al Qaeda" (the base) were released from the field under my name. (Hqs was quite bemused at the term, too. Had no frame of reference against which to analyze it.) Please do not think you understand what you are talking about.

Bin Laden set out to bankrupt and humiliate the United States while fueling resentment against us. In this he was wildly successful.
LOL We are still here, not bankrupt, while BL is sleeping with the fishes of the Indian Ocean. Do you live in an imaginary world all the time, or just when you come to this forum?

Yes, we killed some people and blew some **** up. Congratulations...I'm sure no one saw that coming. We also spent at least $8 trillion we didn't have, showed our complete inability to impose our will through force, and retreated in our most shameful moment since Vietnam.
Dude, we destroyed the AQ organization which attacked us, leaf to stem, and we kept the Taliban hiding in mountain caves for two decades. We could have kept at it for a century, too. And the Taliban knows that. That's called "imposing our will." (and not just imposing our will, but doing so in one of the most inaccessible places on the globe). We educated a couple of generations of THEIR children, allowed THEIR women to choose their own wardrobe and walk alone in public. Not only did Taliban have to watch that, they have to go undo all that. They will not mess with us for a good long while, because they don't want to repeat the indignity and be denied their business model, then have to spend another decade or so cleansing the minds of their peoples. Whatever can be said about our nation-building (which I am not a fan of), there is a brutally powerful Pavlovian message in what we did to Afghanistan, quickly, easily, and for what could have been forever.

And before anyone chimes in with "it's not the defense spending that's killing us, it's the entitlements," understand that the two are not unrelated. Reagan learned this when he tried to outspend the Soviets on defense without adding to the domestic budget. Congress said no way -- you want your guns, we want our butter. That dynamic still exists and always will. The trillions wasted on nation-building have a ripple effect that goes well beyond the sticker price.
Not only do you not understand foreign policy, you do not understand Federal budgeting. Defense spending is discretionary; entitlements are non-discretionary. Meaning we can abate/accelerate one while the other is on escalatory autopilot. Moreover, you really should check the pie charts more closely. We could zero out the entire Defense budget - demobilize all the soldiers, close all the bases, let the ships rust at anchor.....and it won't matter. Literally, that alone would not balance the budget. No argument is more adolescent that one premised on the idea that defense spending drives deficits = comically underinformed.

I doubt Bin Laden wanted to die at the hands of American troops, but from his point of view it was "heads I win, tails you lose." If he eluded us he was an embarrassment (and he did for quite a while). If he was killed he became a martyr. Each result served the larger goal in some way. He probably never imagined that we'd still be supporting Islamic terrorists to annoy Russia 20 years later, this time in Syria. We didn't even learn the obvious lesson about blowback. That's a special kind of stupidity that even our worst enemy would never have pinned on us.
Yes, it was an embarrassment that it took so long to find BL
Yes, his death makes him a martyr.
Yes, the resolution strikes fear into the hearts of our adversaries.
Tthat there exists a nation so powerful that it can find anyone, anywhere, and has the resolve to spend the time and money to do it no matter how long it takes, and the willingness to even cross the borders to do raids in the cities of nominal allies, even in homes adjacent to foreign military bases.....that is sobering to any head of state. It means that if they cross certain lines with respect to sponsoring or even harboring enemies of the USA, they are facing a lifetime on the run for which the outcome is certain. No more hobnobbing with world leaders. No more mansions & private jets. NO more fanfare attends your every move. No more grafting govt spending and foreign aid into your Swiss bank account. No more Harvard or Oxford for your kids. Your grandkids will live in a mud hut, huddling in fear from the whomp-whomp of BlackHawk helicopters, while you hide lying prone and seating in a hole on some random date farm hoping US soldiers fail to notice the disguised doorway to your ignominious accommodations.

Geez you are obtuse.
NO. ONE. IS. SAYING. DEFENSE. CUTS. ALONE. WILL. BALANCE. THE. BUDGET.
Shutting down ALL defense spending will not get us halfway there. And Ukraine spending is less than 5% of the entire defense budget. It's a pittance on the deficit problem, but the single most important thing we can do to forestall a major land war in Europe. If you want to be serious, go make some cuts to entitlement spending and get back to us.

I understand that you have experience in intelligence work, and frankly I think it says a lot about what's gone wrong in the last few decades. People in that position take pride in being able to switch off their biases and report facts without ideology getting in the way. You seem to have little ability in this regard. Your analysis of the Russian military and society is not entirely without historical merit, but it reeks of prejudice and consistently fails to adapt to new information. Even now, after the wholly predictable failure of Ukraine's counter-offensive, you're still convinced that the Russian army is the same one you learned to sneer at back in the 1980s. It's not that I feel bad for them. I feel bad that our foreign policy is such a clown show. So I'm sorry, but bragging that you were one of the first guys to put on the rubber nose and jumbo boots doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
We didn't sneer at them in the Cold War, buddy. We lost sleep over them.
The irony of you talking about bias is quite rich.


You probably have no use for a guy like Michael Scheuer, but I'd recommend his books and interviews if you want to know what a realistic assessment of the War on Terror looks like. The sad truth is that we've accomplished very little. Yes, the Taliban had to hide out in some caves for a while. That's what those caves are for. That's why they're still there and we're not. And notwithstanding all of this empty bravado, the mighty USA wasn't able to take them out at will. As for other heads of state, they already knew what we could do to them if they supported terrorists. What they know after the Iraq War is that we're liable to do it regardless. A big part of their incentive to cooperate died with Saddam Hussein. We're making the same mistake with Iran, whom we seem determined to make an active enemy even though they're the only real source of stability in what's left of Iraq.
LOL. Every grand endeavor, successful or not, has an after action debrief & analysis to learn lessons for the next engagement. So pointing out all the things that some think went wrong is hardly dispositive. Fact is, the WOT achieved its primary objectives. It shattered (in weeks) the regime primarily responsible for 9/11. It shattered (in years) the organization responsible. And the deterrence surrounding what we did to its leader is awe inspiring....the resolve, the resources, no matter what, anywhere, anytime, anyone, etc... No, it did not destroy islamism. And that was not its intent. Ideas like islamism are not things "destroyed" in the classic sense. But you can make them a bad business model. I mean, we won the Cold War, felled the mighty USSR. Was it all a waste because we not destroy communism or marxism as an idea to be reckoned with? (the USSR tried to extirpate ideas it didn't like. Didn't work. Capitalism is ubiquitous. the Russian Orthodox Church is now a central societal institution in Russia.)

I used to speak several times a year to civic groups on the topic of terrorism. Nobody is hosting lectures on terrorism today. They're talking about other topics. That is quite instructive. No, we didn't extirpate islamism from the globe. But we definitely won the WOT. Islamist terrorism will wax and wane over time. We will deal with it. And each time we stamp it out, you will be there carping on the sidelines getting in the way of the people doing the hard work. (just like you are on Ukraine/Russia.)

That being said, I don't mean this post to be as rude as it probably sounds. You contribute a lot to the forum, and I'm sure you contributed a lot in your career as well. But just take a look back at your posts on this thread, man. If the crippling disadvantages faced by Ukraine were obvious to a layman, they should have been even more obvious to you.
Yes, the disadvantages Ukraine faces are obvious. The ease with which Nato support for Ukraine can offset those disadvantages are equally obvious. And despite the inadequacies of what we've done, Ukraine has managed to regain a substantial portion of its territory and force to stalemate a power which you insist cannot lose. If we continue to support Ukraine, they will win.
I mean, geez.....
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

ATL Bear said:



I just want to know where you got $8 Trillion.

The Taliban was cooperating on a counter terrorism level which was the ultimate objective of this fighting (no friendly harbor states), but the Kandahar kooks have made some rumblings about jihad. We'll see if the Doha agreement gets chalked up as a Trump blunder, or if foreign money becomes too enticing to go back to the old Taliban.

Maybe we should use Russian logic and invade again on the threat alone. At least we have a track record of violence against us as justification…
If Afghanistan were on our border I'm sure we would.

$8 trillion is a conservative estimate of the total cost of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Sorry I may not have made that clear.
Proximity is irrelevant. Being an actual threat to your citizens is relevant.

You must be using the Brown study number, which is garbage. The entire defense and intelligence budget for all 20 years is $12-$13 Trillion and includes Veteran expenses. And even if you said every Homeland security dollar goes to these conflicts it still wouldn't touch that level. And how do you add Trillions in interest for expenditures not borrowed for?
The interest is for borrowing; not sure why you'd think otherwise. They didn't even count future interest, or who knows how high the figure would be.

Proximity is relevant to threat. They don't call it geopolitics for nothing.
How much did we actually have to borrow to fund the wars? The actual budget shows over the 20 years, defense and intelligence spending went up steadily and sits at $350 billion a year more 20 years later. Meanwhile entitlement spend sits at nearly 3 Trillion more a year than 20 years ago (nearly a 3x increase). Individual benefit payments have more than doubled, and we've increased the number of retirees, and massively increased medical expenses. We had money to cover conflict escalation. We didn't and don't have the money to cover entitlement growth, and certainly not at the pace we've been on.

And geo refers to world, and geopolitical is global politics. Regionalism is something different.

Get your lies straight. Defense spending is nearly $1 trillion per year.
Learn to read you complete moron. I said that's how much MORE we're spending per year in defense compared to 20 years ago.

2002 -$400 Billion
2022 -$770 Billion.

Just like I said we've had a nearly 3x increase in entitlement spending in the last 20 years if you can't comprehend that basic idea.

2002 - $1.2 Trillion
2022 - $4 Trillion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_federal_budget

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_federal_budget

This is just an echo of the old arguments about foreign aid.... "We have to end foreign aid to balance the budget." (total foreign aid being about $40-50B, against a deficit of $1.4T in 2022.)

SMDH
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


So many false dilemmas. Where to begin.

So sanctions are only "effective" if they cause total collapse?
There is no benefit to sanctions which increase the cost of Russian policies?
There is no benefit to sanctions which degrade Russian military capabilities?

Such arguments suffer from the fallacy of insisting the Anaconda is not a deadly snake because it lacks King Cobra venom.

And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.

There's more, too.....
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.
I don't think that's what he means. It's that they're harming their own interests by going along with the sanctions and the war.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fact we're no longer talking about terrorism says more about the reactive nature of our policies than anything else. Now would be the time to protect ourselves from the next attack. When it happens it will be too late.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[The Tucker Interview

Here's my take in The European Conservative.

It didn't amount to much, did it? This is not Carlson's fault; Putin blustered and rambled. I believe he failed significantly by spending the first half hour giving a history lesson. It's not that history is unimportant here. In fact, it's hugely important, as Americans fail to understand. The error Putin made was not understanding his communication purpose here. That is, if his goal was to appeal to ordinary Americans and it was then he should have spoken more precisely.

Nevertheless, it was significant that this aired, because it is important to understand how our enemies see themselves. This is why I watched Russian propaganda in the early days of the war, until it was removed from European channels. Of course it was propaganda but so too is what the US government and its allies were putting out. That is, if we define "propaganda" as the selective marshaling of facts into a narrative meant to justify a government's action. That's what governments do!

The most valuable thing from the interview, it seems to me, is the way it revealed to American viewers how important history is to Putin's thinking. This is something I've generally observed since I moved to Europe. Americans are profoundly disconnected from history. Most peoples in the world do not share this relationship to the past. We Americans err, and err consequentially, by assuming that everybody else in the world holds their past lightly, if at all. Only Americans could have been convinced by government propaganda that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, that the deep tribal and religious divisions in Iraqi society were not a real issue when it came to establishing liberal democracy there, and that anybody who said otherwise was a racist who didn't want Arabs to have nice things.

What did you think of the interview? To me, the most significant moment came when Putin said, addressing a hypothetical American, What are you doing over here, making war where you don't belong? Don't you have enough problems at home, with your open border, and your overwhelming debt?

One more thing: CNN is calling the interview a "propaganda victory" for Putin. Absurd. Every interview with a political leader, especially during wartime, is "propaganda". Do they really think their fawning coverage of Volodomyr Zelensky isn't propaganda? I don't fault Zelensky for this, nor do I fault to a point CNN. It is the journalist's responsibility to sit down and interview these figures. If they are any good, they will ask important questions. And, subsequent journalism will help readers and viewers sort out truth from fiction in what the leader said. There is this bizarre, willful naivete that has taken over American journalism, which says that views from the leaders of whom we approve, and whose causes we favor, is "real," but the views of our enemies and their spokesmen are "propaganda." This is how we surrender thinking to those who do not have our best interests at heart.] -Rod Dreher
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.
I don't think that's what he means. It's that they're harming their own interests by going along with the sanctions and the war.
only a dumbass would argue that letting Russia subsume Ukraine is in the interest of a single European country.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

The fact we're no longer talking about terrorism says more about the reactive nature of our policies than anything else. Now would be the time to protect ourselves from the next attack. When it happens it will be too late.
LOL it also says a metric shyte-ton about the inability of islamism to project terrorist operations into the west. Some of that is that islamism is losing steam, due primarily to the fact that islamist governments are doing what most governments do.....mis-governing on basic elements of social contract, causing public support for the regime (as opposed to islamism itself) to wane. And then...... We have indeed significantly degraded terrorist leadership and unfrastructure. We've also disrupted their oxygen supply from regimes throughout the islamic world. Almost every government is again cracking down on islamist radicals. And the ones who still do (mostly Iran) are fully committed using their terror infrastured in the region, rather than in the west. THAT is the reason for remaining involved in the middle east = you keep all that rag-head nonsense fighting within the rag-head world rather than getting all united and projecting it elsewhere.

Again. The WOT was effective. The mass terror events have stopped. When they crank back up again, it's not because the WOT was a mistake or ineffective. It's because current policy failed to maintain what the WOT achieved.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

[The Tucker Interview

Here's my take in The European Conservative.

It didn't amount to much, did it? This is not Carlson's fault; Putin blustered and rambled. I believe he failed significantly by spending the first half hour giving a history lesson. It's not that history is unimportant here. In fact, it's hugely important, as Americans fail to understand. The error Putin made was not understanding his communication purpose here. That is, if his goal was to appeal to ordinary Americans and it was then he should have spoken more precisely.

Nevertheless, it was significant that this aired, because it is important to understand how our enemies see themselves. This is why I watched Russian propaganda in the early days of the war, until it was removed from European channels. Of course it was propaganda but so too is what the US government and its allies were putting out. That is, if we define "propaganda" as the selective marshaling of facts into a narrative meant to justify a government's action. That's what governments do!

The most valuable thing from the interview, it seems to me, is the way it revealed to American viewers how important history is to Putin's thinking. This is something I've generally observed since I moved to Europe. Americans are profoundly disconnected from history. Most peoples in the world do not share this relationship to the past. We Americans err, and err consequentially, by assuming that everybody else in the world holds their past lightly, if at all. Only Americans could have been convinced by government propaganda that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, that the deep tribal and religious divisions in Iraqi society were not a real issue when it came to establishing liberal democracy there, and that anybody who said otherwise was a racist who didn't want Arabs to have nice things.

What did you think of the interview? To me, the most significant moment came when Putin said, addressing a hypothetical American, What are you doing over here, making war where you don't belong? Don't you have enough problems at home, with your open border, and your overwhelming debt?

One more thing: CNN is calling the interview a "propaganda victory" for Putin. Absurd. Every interview with a political leader, especially during wartime, is "propaganda". Do they really think their fawning coverage of Volodomyr Zelensky isn't propaganda? I don't fault Zelensky for this, nor do I fault to a point CNN. It is the journalist's responsibility to sit down and interview these figures. If they are any good, they will ask important questions. And, subsequent journalism will help readers and viewers sort out truth from fiction in what the leader said. There is this bizarre, willful naivete that has taken over American journalism, which says that views from the leaders of whom we approve, and whose causes we favor, is "real," but the views of our enemies and their spokesmen are "propaganda." This is how we surrender thinking to those who do not have our best interests at heart.] -Rod Dreher
Tucker's interview was the solid journalism. That's why alphabet "journalists" are attacking it.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.
I don't think that's what he means. It's that they're harming their own interests by going along with the sanctions and the war.
only a dumbass would argue that letting Russia subsume Ukraine is in the interest of a single European country.
If only someone had thought of that five or ten years ago.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.
I don't think that's what he means. It's that they're harming their own interests by going along with the sanctions and the war.
only a dumbass would argue that letting Russia subsume Ukraine is in the interest of a single European country.


Just back in the dark ages of 2013 Ukraine had a pro-Moscow President and it was not a problem for the USA or the EU.

A political coup (with violence), a 10 year bloody separatist war in Donbas, and now a full scale war between Ukraine and Russia and things are better for who?

When will we stop letting maniacs like Nuland control our foreign policy?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

[French politics seem to be bubbling with farmers revolts and cabinet shakeups. Marine Le Pen's populist National Rally party polls well. Sporadic riots emanating from the suburbs are a new norm. Yet low-violence turmoil is a kind of perennial in France, and the safer bet nearly always is that nothing dramatic will change on the domestic political front.

Intellectual currents may be more important. France is the first major European country (after Hungary, at least) to begin to acknowledge that the Ukraine war has turned into a major catastrophe for the West. President Macron still sings from the hymnal of Ukraine solidarity and the major voices of the center left and right still support unconditional aid to Ukraine. But cracks in the consensus are widening...

Now a Frenchman, the veteran and well-established social scientist Emmanuel Todd has, in an ambitious lamentation of American global leadership, taken the novel's "let's not demonize Putin" sentiment to another level. At this writing, his La Dfaite de L'Occident (The Defeat of the West) has been at or near the top of French best-seller lists for four weeks. Todd has had a large French readership since his first book, written in 1976 when he was a graduate student studying European peasant communities, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Michael Lind, in his preface to the English version of After the Empire, a coruscating critique of America's imperial world role written as Washington was plunging into the Iraq War, places Todd in the tradition of the great Raymond Aron, as an enlightened liberal and empirically grounded skeptic. This is not quite precise: Todd is both more polemical and, if not dogmatically so, more left-wing than Aron. Yet he shares with him a healthy respect for social science data, deploying them here to undermine the West's most widely circulated and least challenged political narratives....

La Dfaite opens with a recitation of the surprises to emerge from the Ukraine war. The hawkishness of Great Britain, the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out. But several others are particularly important, and serve as major themes of Todd's book.

First, the Russian economy has successfully withstood the fierce American and Western financial sanctions...

Secondly, by last summer, it had become clear that the United States and the West lacked capacity to supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery shells...

Third, and perhaps most significantly, was the revelation of the West's ideological self-isolation as the Ukraine proxy war has ground on. From the outset large democratic countries such as Turkey and India failed to embrace Washington's sanctions regime...]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/french-best-seller-u-s-is-a-nihilist-empire/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email


And then there is this excerpt highly detrimental to your insistence that we should simply let Russia have Ukraine:
"...the failure of France and Germany to stand up for their own diplomatic and economic interests, the effectiveness and will to fight of the Ukrainian military are singled out..." Even the guy you cited implicitly accedes to the notion that we have an interest in thwarting Russian ambitions in Ukraine.
I don't think that's what he means. It's that they're harming their own interests by going along with the sanctions and the war.
only a dumbass would argue that letting Russia subsume Ukraine is in the interest of a single European country.



We could also just divide Ukraine up between a Western oriented "West Ukraine" and Russian oriented "East Ukraine"

It's been done in other places before…far better than endless war




Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nuland and her mind control sandwiches.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear8084 said:

Nuland and her mind control sandwiches.



It was less the sandwiches and more the $5 billion in US taxpayer money she (and others) poured into Ukraine from NGOs and direct gov. payments.

[the cookies weren't enough….then a speech she gave around the same time to the US-Ukraine Foundation was proof positive. Nuland admitted that the US had spent about $5 billion on "democracy-building" programs in Ukraine since 1991]



Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?






Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mighty powerful sandwiches.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear8084 said:

Mighty powerful sandwiches.



$5 Billion is some mighty expensive sandwiches
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Bear8084 said:

Mighty powerful sandwiches.



$5 Billion is some mighty expensive sandwiches


The $5 billion goes back to 1991 assistance. Had nothing to do with Maidan.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I heard Nuland loaded the guns that shot all those protesters, and through CIA voice imprint technology gave the order to fire. It's all in the file Putin gave to Tucker.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

I heard Nuland loaded the guns that shot all those protesters, and through CIA voice imprint technology….


Naw…. that fat Israeli could not load a protein machine much less a gun.

But she can pay various groups of poor people to kill each other in Eastern Europe…all the time using American taxpayer money to play out her ethnic revenge fantasies
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

I heard Nuland loaded the guns that shot all those protesters, and through CIA voice imprint technology….


Naw…. that fat Israeli could not load a protein machine much less a gun.

But she can pay various groups of poor people to kill each other in Eastern Europe…all the time using American taxpayer money to play out her ethnic revenge fantasies
I'm not sure you're familiar with the situation on the ground in Ukraine. If you want to say the CIA helped escalate Ukraines military pursuits after Russia invaded Crimea and kicked off the Donbas war, okay. The Maiden protests were pretty organic, and Yanukovych was a corrupt snake. He gave the U.S. and the EU a gift by taking action to suppress the protesters and eventually killing them. He was getting impeached until he bolted the country before it went down.
First Page Last Page
Page 65 of 180
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.