Politics

[Scott CWO]

As for Alaska, there are two aspects to a conventional military take-over. there is the initial attack and take possession and then there is the occupation. Given the materiel advantage, the Russians could win the initial portion but the occupation would likely be a different story and that is where the Russian leaders would be endangered by the devoted WhiteFeather disciple.
But in reality the exchange of Alaska would be much more peaceful. What will happen is the US will become so financially indebted to China that China will force a default on the debt and among other things will demand Alaska as payment. the US govt will Quit-Claim Alaska over to China and China will give it as a present to Russia (in exchange for other items).
There would still be the problems with occupation, but Russia & China would have a massive immigration program to shift public opinion and make possible a secret police system of neighbors ratting on neighbors.

??? Seriously? I don’t think so. No matter who’s in the White House, we would never give up Alaska.

 

[Jfet]

Those AR15's and 30-06's are awesome, but fairly ridiculous when confronting with a BMP 3.

Now all us Bubbas and Rednecks have to come up with something else to talk about. That’s going to take a lot of thinking and drinking.

 

[spike.t]

A Whopping $900B Debt - China's Once-Profitable High-Speed Railways Now Heading Towards A Trillion Dollar Disaster

China’s long-distance high-speed rail (HSR) is hailed as the fundamental tenet of its initiatives to recover the country’s coronavirus-affected economy. The government’s goal is to expand further what is already the world’s most extensive high-speed rail network. Recapturing Alaska! Russia...

eurasiantimes.com

 

[Boyd Brooks]

 

[Jfet]

Perhaps I’m missing your point. If so I apologize. The North Vietnamese won in every sense of the word. Without ever winning a battle. They outlasted our nation’s political will to make war. Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

I wonder what those hard core 1960 Vietnamese Communist would think of this article https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=Vietnam-US-Banks

 

[PARA45]

 

[PARA45]

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Red Leg]

I thought you were smarter than that. Vietnam was not a defeat other than the myth perpetrated by the media and ignorant professors.

I guess I must be smarter than you - or perhaps better informed? Last I looked Vietnam was a united country under what was the North Vietnamese flag. The name Saigon no longer exists. None of our wartime objectives were sustained. Perhaps you missed this on the news.

It is true, like Afghanistan, that the US military was not defeated on the battlefield. But as Clausewitz noted so clearly "war is a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means." Our government chose to suspend that mechanism of carrying out policy, and defeat followed. We reached a truce with the North Vietnamese government that allowed the withdrawal of our combat forces, and the NVA rolled in thereafter. Our political goals and objectives, whether through diplomacy, proxies, or military power, were not achieved. That is a defeat. History does and will continue to record it that way.

Trump made the same determination, it was carried out by the following administration and another defeat followed.

Interestingly, we seem to be gradually winning the econo/cultural contest that followed the war, which is gradually successfully securing many of those early political goals. I suspect we will have much less luck with Afghanistan.

Or have I missed something?

 

[Ray B]

The problem is that people are conflating the events of 1975 with 1973. The "war" ended in 1973 with a peace treaty. The NVA attacked in 1975 and the US chose not to intervene. Choosing to not intervene does not equal defeat. It just means the NVA weren't human enough to keep their promise.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I should add that our government never believed the North’s promise to stop attacking the South. Getting them to make the promise was all the pretext our politicians needed to withdraw. When they predictably violated the truce and invaded, we shrugged, loaded the helicopters and got out of Dodge. They won. We lost. There are lessons to be learned that we won’t unless we face the facts.

I know I’ll catch hell for this statement, but we don’t win wars or “police actions “ (Korea) since WW2 because we play by the rules. None of our opponents have/do. We get a bunch of soldiers killed and spend trillions of dollars and the end result is the same with the exception of the stalemate in Korea. With nukes, North Korea is more dangerous than ever. I know we try to strike a balance in these “conflicts”, but we keep ending up where we started. I don’t know what the ultimate answer is, but what we’ve done in the past hasn’t worked.

 

[Red Leg]

The problem is that people are conflating the events of 1975 with 1973. The "war" ended in 1973 with a peace treaty. The NVA attacked in 1975 and the US chose not to intervene. Choosing to not intervene does not equal defeat. It just means the NVA weren't human enough to keep their promise.

But Ray, no historian makes that distinction (who cares about the media) and none ever will. Virtually all, will readily admit that the US was not defeated on the battlefield. But the battlefield was only one element of the contest between ourselves and North Vietnam. The other was political by means other than the battlefield. That contest they won decisively when we decided to suspend achieving those objectives by war. The fact that we did not respond to the offensive of '75 was the final signal that we accepted our defeat in achieving those objectives.

 

[Wheels]

You might think that petroleum, natural gas, fertilizer, food shortages, Russian aggression etc. might be at the top of the list.

Wonder how much longer the EU/Euro will be around in it's present form.





ian bremmer
eu parliament votes 324-155 to condemn us supreme court overturning roe v wade



5:31 PM · Jul 7, 2022·Twitter Web App

 

[spike.t]

 

[Wheels]

If this guy says something, it is generally wise to plan on the opposite.

 

[Areaonereal]

In 1998 Krugman stated the internet would have no greater effect on the economy that the fax machine. His track record is enviable if you follow his advice and do the opposite.

 

[Ray B]

that we did not respond to the offensive of '75 was the final signal that we accepted our defeat in achieving those objectives.

I wouldn't call it a defeat to achieving an objective- an analogy would be: an older brother prevents a larger boy from beating up his younger smaller brother. After several fights the older brother hopes that the younger brother would get his act together enough to fight the larger boy on his own. But after a length of time the older brother gives up and lets the larger boy beat-up on his younger brother.

While S Vietnam was lost to the Communists it interesting that supporting N Vietnam, along with USSRs misadventures in Afghanistan and low worldwide prices for USSRs commodities resulted in the fall of the USSR. Since the Vietnam conflict was actually a proxy war, by any measure, the US survived while the USSR collapsed. So who won that one?

 

[Wheels]

 

[Wheels]

 

[spike.t]

BBC News - Zero Covid holds danger for China's Xi

Zero Covid holds danger for China's Xi

The leader is seeking a historic third term amid an economic slump and growing fatigue over Covid.

www.bbc.co.uk