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

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
IOTE="paulobrito, post: 274507, member: 754"]
Also, in Iraq and Afghanistan, look at the work done by continental European forces in stabilizing the areas where they operate. Them, compare these with the areas managed by the US forces. You see a clear difference.
But, for some people, the role of the military is just to be a Hulk - smash.
[/QUOTE]
In Afghanistan IIRC there were actual cases of German troops guarding positions sleeping on the job.
The German military has actually been turned into a glorified make work scheme according to some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
This idea that military prowess on the battlefield and combat in general are divorced from politics and political objectives is pure US military cope they came up with to deflect blame from their own part in why the US public turned against the Vietnam and other conflicts.

Hint, Mai Lai Massacre was a thing, as was the drug/sex trade within the US military that the brass tried to downplay and ignore. Like, the Vietcong's head intel guy in S.Vietnam was basically a pimp who got info from his girls, who did business with GIs regularly.

War is just diplomacy by other means, after all, and that the US military keeps forgetting this axiom when it hurts their pride is part of why a lot of the public has less and less willingness to put up with military life.

@Bacle the one about the pimp sounds juicy. Who was the VC pimp spy?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Nah - the US military also has a 'stellar' rep in that area.
raping every girl which do not hide,and steal everything? nope,that was soviets.And moscov army now.

Fun thing - my distant family lived in countryside during WW2.Girls could go near german soldiers unmolested,and they do not steal,too.Unless ordered - then they come,steal and murdered.
Soviets units nearby meant,that girls must hide.

Main difference between sralin and putin - both raped and stealed,but sralin,at least,could fight.
 

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
raping every girl which do not hide,and steal everything? nope,that was soviets.And moscov army now.

Fun thing - my distant family lived in countryside during WW2.Girls could go near german soldiers unmolested,and they do not steal,too.Unless ordered - then they come,steal and murdered.
Soviets units nearby meant,that girls must hide.

Main difference between sralin and putin - both raped and stealed,but sralin,at least,could fight.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I am not fan of Soviet Union conduct, behaviour and ineptitude during and after WW2, but how the fuck can you goddamn claim that when there were parasitic degenerate rapist junkies like Oskar Paul Dirlewanger and PRIMARILY in the OSTFRONT?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Polish girls could be safe around German soldiers ?

In a colonial country ?

Do you have mush for a brain ?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
@Bacle the one about the pimp sounds juicy. Who was the VC pimp spy?
He was effectively the head of the Vietcong intel in S. Vietnam, and gave them the intel to pull off the Tet Offensive.

Of course the US military doesn't want to admit one of their biggest fuck ups and PR disasters was caused by hookers and their pimp being enemy agents and our boys being horny and stupid.

I only know about it due to a History Channel doc I saw like 15 years ago.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Are you fucking kidding me?

I am not fan of Soviet Union conduct, behaviour and ineptitude during and after WW2, but how the fuck can you goddamn claim that when there were parasitic degenerate rapist junkies like Oskar Paul Dirlewanger and PRIMARILY in the OSTFRONT?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Polish girls could be safe around German soldiers ?

In a colonial country ?

Do you have mush for a brain ?

Average german units - yes.Dirlivenger was bandit leading other bandits - and they behaved as soviets.
Other units - if they were ordered to burn alive all poles including children,they did so.But,without such orders,cyvilians near them was safe.
My other cousins was in liberated part of Warsaw in 1944/Praga/.Germans do not hurt them,but when soviet come they must hide in sewers.When they come back,they discowered that soviet shit in their flat before leaving,including bath-tub.

Sorry,but that how reality looked like.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
He was effectively the head of the Vietcong intel in S. Vietnam, and gave them the intel to pull off the Tet Offensive.

Of course the US military doesn't want to admit one of their biggest fuck ups and PR disasters was caused by hookers and their pimp being enemy agents and our boys being horny and stupid.

I only know about it due to a History Channel doc I saw like 15 years ago.
You know the Tet offensive stalled and then got pushed back right?
It was a good surprise but still showed just how outmatched the NVA and the VC were against them.

Have you actually looked at the history of the units oncovled in these and the on the ground things?
Because o can tell you. Vietnam was a clusterfuxk because we were tied behind our backs. But what do I know.


Also, the state department may set the ROE, because they know if we were allowed to operate ourselves we would be mor effective. because ROE is how you get situations like The Outpost.
The amount if times the SD gets SM kill3d is larger then aby war the DoD or WD has had....
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
You know the Tet offensive stalled and then got pushed back right?
It was a good surprise but still showed just how outmatched the NVA and the VC were against them.
It may have been militarily pushed back, but PR damage was done, and the battle at home was lost.

Which is all that matters; no amount of bravery, tenacity, or tactical brillance can fix those sorts of issues, and the repurcussions from them.

Just like most of the lives lost in A-stan were wasted, so were most of the lives in Vietnam, and the American public was not interested in a continuous sunk-cost-fallacy costing our people their lives for NO GAIN.
Have you actually looked at the history of the units oncovled in these and the on the ground things?
Because o can tell you. Vietnam was a clusterfuxk because we were tied behind our backs. But what do I know.
I know what I've read and seen, none of which justifies any part of the Vietnam conflict.

I mean Tonkin was half NVA stupidity, half-false flag, and Vietnam was mostly France trying to bleed the US and test how far they could push the NATO partnership to get us to take their colony back for them.
Also, the state department may set the ROE, because they know if we were allowed to operate ourselves we would be mor effective. because ROE is how you get situations like The Outpost.
The amount if times the SD gets SM kill3d is larger then aby war the DoD or WD has had....
They set the ROE because, as I've said and you admit is true, war is a continuation of politics via other means, and the political aims are what the conditions needed for victory or truce.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
...if you look at Progressivism as a religion - which it is - you will realize that religious freedom doesn't really exist except on the paper, because Progressivism is basically assimilating all the other religions.

Also, Alien and Sedition act and the Espionage act are... basically how any sane government acts in a time of war. Problem starts when government concludes that it is at war against its own people and starts using such measures in peacetime (see: Nazis, Communists, modern-day democracies).
Accepting for the sake of argument your point about progressivism as a religion, the anti-progressive religions (which do exist: I reject your claim of "all") are protected.

I also disagree about those acts being necessary. For example, the espionage act started out not too bad but expanded greatly due to war hysteria.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Things were working fine until Ukraine experienced coups and western orientation.
1. If you mean 2014 ... in 2013, Ukraine pursued trade agreements with both Russia and the EU. Russia was happy when they thought the EU deal would fall through, but when it looked like it would become reality Russia froze all imports from Ukraine. So Ukrainian neutrality, dealing with both sides without turning its back on either, was unacceptable to Moscow. Ukraine had to choose Russia and Russia only.
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.
2. "Missiles" is a vague term. Russia has plenty of old Soviet rocket artillery missiles. That doesn't mean it necessarily has plenty of cruise missiles, plenty of "hypersonic" missiles, etc. And let me be clear: I'm not arguing that the west is not going to have economic problems. I'm saying it's very obvious that its economic problems will be dwarfed by those Russia will be experiencing. If you haven't heard it yet, I refer you to the Russia's Central Bank's outlook:
"The period when the economy can live using reserves will end, and as early as in Q2 or at the beginning of Q3 we will enter the period of structural transformation, searching for new business models,"

I take the position that "structural transformation" is code for "the economy will be on fire and in serious danger of collapse" and "searching for new business models" means "because businesses are unable to operate normally".
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.
3. I think we will have to agree to disagree that a ruinous war is a price "they" are willing to pay for access to the draconian measures said war will allegedly unlock. As for taking Russia's natural resources, lmfao that didn't even happen with Iraq why would it happen with Russia?
Why not? The US is a sore loser.
4. How so? Vietnam was our only real defeat in war of the 20th century and it didn't take very long for us to get relatively chummy with them, especially considering them being unrepentant communists. And speaking of 20th century wars, we didn't nuke China in the Korean War.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
The Soviet Union had a high-class hooker (both sexes) school to compromise foreign dignitaries, the nazi regime has the best hooker house in Berlin controlled by the SS for the same, the Mossad uses hookers regularly for the same, and so on.
And China has that congressman, Smallwell was it, by the balls thanks to their female spy. ;)
And the Chinese have ensnared
Simple, you don't; the is no silver bullet and no grand strategy that can defeat the Far-Left without becoming the monster's they already paint the Right as.
So farewel Hope, and with Hope farewel Fear,
Farewel Remorse: all Good to me is lost;
Evil be thou my Good; by thee at least
Divided Empire with Heav'ns King I hold
By thee, and more then half perhaps will reigne;
As Man ere long, and this new World shall know.

Then evil shall be our good.
The leftards already see us as monsters, as evil, as somebody who must be destroyed without compromise.
Well, what goes around comes around, and the first principal in our dealings with them should be "do onto others as they would onto you, and do it first."
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Has I said before - the US military is good at the breaking things / killing part - the easy one. The rest? Not so much.
and all of the US defeats/going home in shame are because of that.
It's not actually easy just because the US military makes it look easy. As Russia has been demonstrating non-stop for a couple months now.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Agreed. Although problem is, government will always decide to use it against the people it sees as a problem.



They are not unrelated, they are one of the reasons why leftism / progressivism is so successful. Families basically don't exist anymore, and literally everything we have come up with to try and compensate for that problem... is controlled by the left.

Leftism is just better at adapting to conditions created by modernity, partly because it was created by said conditions.



I meant families in general. As for the Church, no idea. Half of the leftist language is basically copy-pasted from Church sermons anyway, it is just out of the context and often pushed to the extreme.



What I meant is that unlike natural tribes which are mostly concerned with their own survival and only lash out against others if they are perceived as a danger, leftists want absolute domination - they see any dissent as a threat, and do not want to allow existence of anything outside the leftism itself.

It is an epitome of totalitarian ideology.



True, and it was replaced by a monarchical government that lasted for 1500 years. But the world has sped up significantly since then.



That is what I meant with "but problem is".



But that basically means accepting Left's victory as inevitable and, essentially, hoping that some kind of apocalypse will wipe out the modern society without exterminating human species as such, and that before Leftists manage to either cause humanity to go extinct or to turn it into something unrecognizable.

I'd rather become a monster - except even that hasn't managed to stop them (see Chile).



Right has lost in large part because Left advances and Right compromises. Today's conservatives are yesteryear's progressives. Punt today's rightists about a hundred years in the past, and they will be the worst of leftists by that time's standards.

The main problem is that the Right is merely focused on preserving what they know, on preserving their childhood memories, whereas Left is focused on destroying the current society and making their ideals into childhood memories of the next generation. And this means that next generation of conservatives will be completely, utterly indistinguishable from today's progressives, while next generation of progressives will have been considered insane by most of today's progressives.

Look at what happened to previous generation of Wokeist, Leftist idols for a perfect illustration. J.K. Rowling? You know, that typical hypocritical foaming-at-the-mouth leftist author? Just recently, she got cancelled by new generation leftists because she is apparently fascist.

This generational mutation is how the Left wins. Conservatives, by their very nature, live in the present. They only react. As a result, they simply cannot oppose a movement - a cult - whose fundamental nature is constructed around forcing a permanent change, a march into oblivion.



Tet offensive was a success because it was a propaganda victory. Tactically, it basically destroyed the Viet Cong, but strategically, it ended any hope of United States winning the war.
I mean...not really.
Because we were being held back from the get go we wernt allowed to hold anything north and were also not allowed to destroy everything along the Ho Chi Min trail.

The things that hurt the US the most was that we were tied and had to hold back. Bevause total war is bloody and we were not at total war.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I mean...not really.
Because we were being held back from the get go we wernt allowed to hold anything north and were also not allowed to destroy everything along the Ho Chi Min trail.

The things that hurt the US the most was that we were tied and had to hold back. Bevause total war is bloody and we were not at total war.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that US commanders had been saying that the war will be over soon, and then the offensive proved them wrong. Now, it is possible that being allowed to hit North Vietnam would have allowed the US to destroy the Viet Cong and NVA before the Tet Offensive and thus prevent it from ever happening, but fact still remains that the offensive was basically the moment NVA won the war.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
But that basically means accepting Left's victory as inevitable and, essentially, hoping that some kind of apocalypse will wipe out the modern society without exterminating human species as such, and that before Leftists manage to either cause humanity to go extinct or to turn it into something unrecognizable.

I'd rather become a monster - except even that hasn't managed to stop them (see Chile).



Right has lost in large part because Left advances and Right compromises. Today's conservatives are yesteryear's progressives. Punt today's rightists about a hundred years in the past, and they will be the worst of leftists by that time's standards.

The main problem is that the Right is merely focused on preserving what they know, on preserving their childhood memories, whereas Left is focused on destroying the current society and making their ideals into childhood memories of the next generation. And this means that next generation of conservatives will be completely, utterly indistinguishable from today's progressives, while next generation of progressives will have been considered insane by most of today's progressives.

Look at what happened to previous generation of Wokeist, Leftist idols for a perfect illustration. J.K. Rowling? You know, that typical hypocritical foaming-at-the-mouth leftist author? Just recently, she got cancelled by new generation leftists because she is apparently fascist.

This generational mutation is how the Left wins. Conservatives, by their very nature, live in the present. They only react. As a result, they simply cannot oppose a movement - a cult - whose fundamental nature is constructed around forcing a permanent change, a march into oblivion.
You are coming at this of the dichotomy of just a 'complete and utter removal of opposition in power is victory, anything less is defeat', while not realizing that there are other...orthogonal options besides just 'Left or Right political victory'.

'Coexistence around the center, depowering of both fringes' is what the best outcome is for everyone. It won't be perfect and social/political conflict will occur, but we may be able to rein in the worst of both sides and set new ground rules for social discussions/actions going forward.

Now that might seem like a total defeat to you, but it's a reality most of humanity could tolerate.
I mean...not really.
Because we were being held back from the get go we wernt allowed to hold anything north and were also not allowed to destroy everything along the Ho Chi Min trail.

The things that hurt the US the most was that we were tied and had to hold back. Bevause total war is bloody and we were not at total war.
You shouldn't be desiring total war just because you have the ability to unleash it.

For one thing, completely removing the civie question and the cost in US lives question, the environmental destruction brought on by total war can take a long to fix, if ever, particularly in a jungle environment with thin soils, and would have effects on all the downstream ecology in the South China Sea.

As well, ok, we go total war on Vietnam, and do so before we open up China. You think the CCP and USSR would have allowed the US a victory in Vietnam without exacting a massive toll or expanding the conflict elsewhere?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top