Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The US's WWI-era government expansion was not permanent, was it?
Lol, yeah it was.
It's not an issue of paying for trade in dollars per se, it is that it is exporting dollars as a commodity as the US ruling elite forced the world to use dollars as the means of global trade. So instead of actually producing things (other than weapons, entertainment, and food) the US just exports dollars and gets goods in return (effectively. See petro-dollar recycling for a more complicated and technical explanation of how it works). That's led to the elite getting very rich and living off of the production of other countries, while the US people get impoverished. When countries try to get off of US dollars or try to build up their own agriculture they tend to run into US backed coups if not actual invasions. Or when the US elite decides they need to vampire another nation's economy, say Iraq, they invade and take control over the resources. But it is an unsustainable system and requires constant threats and violence to make it work.
Almost none of this is true.

Your very first problem assuming competence on the part of the US government in regards to Iraq. No, it happened cause Junior wanted revenge for his daddy.

Second, you don't seem to get how the economy works if you think America just endlessly exports dollars. It doesn't, they come back in a variety of methods, usually by investment or buying debt (both government debt and commercial paper).

Third, the difference between production and service is arbitrary and stupid. IBM, IIRC, now views itself as being in the service industry. They still make machines, they just keep the machines and provide the servers as a service.

Same with Amazon web hosting. That's a whole industry that was once production and is now service.

And I could go on. The concept that trade is somehow negative, for example. Let me rephrase what you wrote for a second:

So instead of actually producing things (other than cars) Jim the Autoworker just exports dollars and gets goods in return (effectively. See [thing I didn't even provide a link for] for a more complicated and technical explanation of how it works).

As we are now seeing the US turned into too much of a service/virtual economy and too little of a real one, so can no longer maintain its system and is getting desperate enough to start another world war to cover up the core problems of the economy.
Muh service economy is the stupidest take. The electrician or plumber is in the service economy. A film studio/production company is in the industry section, as they produce an end good that is sold.

It's not the product that's being produced changing, it's how it's being sold that's changing.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Russia's troops were given the most dangerous thing you can give a military.

A deadline.

So they are pushing, and pushing, and pushing in an attempt to meet that deadline even though doing so isn't anywhere near sustainable for them.
History may not repeat but it sure as hell rhymes. The Roman attempted invasion of Germany, Napoleons attempted invasion of Russia, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, The CCP failed invasion of Vietnam and now Russia's current invasion of Ukraine. All done by leaders who asked way to much of their military.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
History may not repeat but it sure as hell rhymes. The Roman attempted invasion of Germany, Napoleons attempted invasion of Russia, Hitler's failed invasion of Russia, The CCP failed invasion of Vietnam and now Russia's current invasion of Ukraine. All done by leaders who asked way to much of their military.
I mean.
When the leaders ask way to much of the US we find a way to get it done. May be past deadline but we get it done
 

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
As I recall, in Vietnam the US Military ground the Viet Con and North Vietnamese Army into a bloody smear. It's just, to paraphrase Rambo, someone wouldn't let them win. Namely, feckless politicians in Washington without an ounce of military understanding.

The political goals of the US have not been reached these last few decades, but the United States Military has crushed every foe it has come across on the battlefield.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Oh, right. Another subscriber of that fantasy. You see that in so many countries.
If our politicians let us fight we don't lose. Right. Dream on.
You are only good at crashing the place in the initial moves, nothing more.
Read a bit of your military history, without the propaganda turned on, and you see the reality.
But I bet that is going to be difficult for you, after all, decades of indoctrination make a mess of your cognitive capabilities.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Oh, right. Another subscriber of that fantasy. You see that in so many countries.
If our politicians let us fight we don't lose. Right. Dream on.
You are only good at crashing the place in the initial moves, nothing more.
Read a bit of your military history, without the propaganda turned on, and you see the reality.
But I bet that is going to be difficult for you, after all, decades of indoctrination make a mess of your cognitive capabilities.
So, then point to an actual military loss. Not a failure of the state department to achieve what they want in the other country, not a withdrawal due to domestic political issues, but a military defeat. A stand up battle where American military forces were forced off the field, or where they took significant losses. A target they were told to occupy that they failed to take. Someone they decided they wanted dead who lived anyway.

Vietnam was a politically motivated withdrawal due to domestic political issues. Failures in COIN are a failure of the state department and the administration to effect the political and cultural change in their targets. Neither of those reflect on the military capabilities of the armed forces. You could replace every soldier with invisible space marines and still fail to implement the government wanted in Afghanistan.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Right, right - all your failures are because of political reasons. All your victories are because of military might.
But, you forget you don't have one without the other.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Right, right - all your failures are because of political reasons. All your victories are because of military might.
But, you forget you don't have one without the other.
Uh huh. I'm not American, and you're not answering the simple question. You're blatantly trying to reframe the debate as some point you can actually argue. I'm not saying America can never lose, they obviously can fail to achieve their aims. I'm saying, they do not lose militarily.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
That depends on what you call military operations.
Securing the territory is also part of the military job, and that is one of the parts that the US fails time and again.
For you only battle count. For me - and the rest of the world - no, that is only the initial move.
Or using an old but still valid expression - winning all the battles, losing all wars. Or, from victory to victory up to the final defeat.
You can't dissociate the killing from the objectives. Yes, the US military is good at the killing phase, but little more.
Your point is that the rest is not the responsibility of the military. Sorry, is only your opinion.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
That depends on what you call military operations.
Securing the territory is also part of the military job, and that is one of the parts that the US fails time and again.
For you only battle count. For me - and the rest of the world - no, that is only the initial move.
Or using an old but still valid expression - winning all the battles, losing all wars. Or, from victory to victory up to the final defeat.
You can't dissociate the killing from the objectives. Yes, the US military is good at the killing phase, but little more.
Your point is that the rest is not the responsibility of the military. Sorry, is only your opinion.
So... You can't answer the simple question and point to any actual military defeats? You admit they don't lose fights? I mean, sure as hell if America were in Russia's place they wouldn't have been driven off Kyiv in disgrace with their tail between their legs.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Oh well... God gives me patience. In individual battles, that serve to nothing? very few times indeed in the last decades. Is that what you want to hear? Satisfied?
But, in wars? Many, many times. And no, many times is not the politicos that are guilty of that. One of the biggest problems is that the modern US military is very bad at anything outside of killing / breaking things.
And you, clearly, don't understand what the job of the military is. For you is just the killing part.
Way too many US defeats are caused because they can't secure the ground or the hearts and minds of the local people. And, yes, that is part of the military job.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Oh well... God gives me patience. In individual battles, that serve to nothing? very few times indeed in the last decades. Is that what you want to hear? Satisfied?
But, in wars? Many, many times. And no, many times is not the politicos that are guilty of that. One of the biggest problems is that the modern US military is very bad at anything outside of killing / breaking things.
And you, clearly, don't understand what the job of the military is. For you is just the killing part.
Way too many US defeats are caused because they can't secure the ground or the hearts and minds of the local people. And, yes, that is part of the military job.
No, effecting social and cultural change is not the job of the military. Members of the military may be tasked to do specific things by the people who are responsible in aid of their goals, but "Convince these people to be more democratic." is not a military objective. As for securing ground, they're excellent at that. How many US bases or secured areas have ever been destroyed or taken off them?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Unless the EU became a Russian puppet, I don't think so. Russia would not be happy with Ukraine not under its control. Actual neutrality is an unacceptable outcome to the Kremlin.
Things were working fine until Ukraine experienced coups and western orientation.

2. The implication that the inability of NATO countries' collective militaryindustrial complex to keep up with the materiel consumption of modern war is more acute than Russia's is laughable. If I am reading into your post an implication that you do not stand by, then let me know and I will stand corrected. (In a hypothetical Russia+China conflict, I think the other theater will be basically a naval and air war and those stockpiles are almost untapped, aren't they?)
Without the covid global supply chain disruptions you'd be right. However the economy of 2022 is very different, the US $30 trillion in debt, inflation climbing, the stock market down big, and even the US and NATO acknowledging supply problems. We haven't even experienced the fallout from the energy issues from the sanctions, fertilizer shortages, or food export problems either.





We were told Russia was about to run out of missile and other supplies in early March, yet here the Russians are still going and outmatching the Ukrainians in artillery despite all that NATO support.

3. A world war wouldn't really solve the problems, though. Even if victorious ruling over ashes is not a step up over merely going from unquestioned hegemon to ... questioned hegemon.
It gives them domestic control and ability to reduce quality of life even further while being able to use war powers to achieve it. Plus if successful they can seize resources from the enemy. Unquestioned hegemony is not what enables wars like this; it is the lack of unquestioned hegemony, aka western weakness, that is enabling this to even happen.

4. Even in a conventional conflict that NATO is losing, I don't see the "nukes coming out" on our end. And surely Russia and China would not take that step if they were as you expect winning.
Why not? The US is a sore loser.

Lol, yeah it was.

Almost none of this is true.

Your very first problem assuming competence on the part of the US government in regards to Iraq. No, it happened cause Junior wanted revenge for his daddy.
There is really no reason to even reply to your comment if this is the level of silly belief you really have. You really have zero understanding how the world works.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top