The War Machine, and A Very Curious Silence

[Constantine]

Most of the gear Ukraine is receiving is second hand, they still haven't gotten for example the new Abrams. And as I've pointed out before here (and others elsewhere) it's not gear modernizing Ukraine (to about the 1990s) for maneuver warfare, for a quick victory, but rather a attritional war. The only sense I can draw from it is they want the tanks and artillery Russia currently possesses on the field or in reserves destroyed. It's more logical to destroy the tanks than artillery, as artillery is little more than a metal tube drilled down the middle. That can be remade with WW1 era industry. The war won't take this away from Russia. Smashing the tanks makes sense.... but this comes at the cost of massive western reserves and ukrainian lives. Biden appears to of made this decision during the liberation of Kherson. I thought releasing the Russians was a idiotic move, as all they did was reinforce the trench lines to the north east. It defeated the spring offensive Ukraine launched.

As to the tax dollar lost via the military industrial sector.... tough. Not a real problem. US sits at the head of several military blocs, and had passive influence in several others (see me Niger ECOWAS thread). The only thing that civilized Europe.... and I do mean the only fucking thing, was the alliance that evolved into NATO. Prior it was a continent provoking World Wars and endless colonial expansion. Once it started thinking holistically (as in Jan Smut political philosophy of holism) where the parts came together thinking about collective defense did that other shit stop suddenly mattering. Those multiple blocs saved the world. And it took the arsenal of democracy and the military industrial complex to do it.

Yes, I grasp the viscious circle arguments. I've had naval ship communication systems directly marketed to me (I never was in the Navy) because of a supposed influencer status. I get followed around blatantly by the Chinese who like to check up and like my posts on Twitter all the time. That's a stupid amount of marketing money to make the right people happy and the right people listen to a diverse crowd. Defense lobbyists but also stained military wives whistling a different tune. You'll also have specialists like myself with very narrow but consequential concerns. And you'll also have complete idiotic flops like veggie upset and not understanding anything, but have a deep need to howl and protest just because. I'm all for the conversation.

My concern is two fold.

1) The OSINT community is mostly conservative.... the 40+ age bracket if you look at political majorities indicates a mostly conservative military under Bush and prior. They are largely silent right now, and it shows. Biden made alot of blunders, and twitter silencing twitter spaces for Ukraine War discussions was largely due to NAFO Liberal Haye speech for anyone with a contrary view. I used to be a active contributor to the top Ukraine space over there, and 100% grasp why twitter started censoring it.... turned into a liberal neo nazi cesspool and drove every conservative out. Used to be alot more balanced. The war was politically much more balanced in support. Left has driven the conservatives away in sicko ways only they can develop. So alot of former military members who know the tech the best are out, and alot of guys with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE, who haven't even picked up a copy of Sun Tzu, doing the bulk of the analysis that the well read public reads, and news channels follow. It's a Idiocracy. This means criticism isn't being faced by the Biden administration, and thus the need to reevaluate and adjust strategy.

2) Biden stole the election and Washington, DC was occupied for months by a hostile, liberal military. Enemy number 1? People looking like patriotic former veterans. I've been waiting to go to the library of congress that whole time. Can't. If Joe Biden hits a set back, falls down in the polls.... we can have another occupation of DC suddenly. I don't want to he accused of being a rioter while sitting in the rose room reading a medieval philosophy text. Why? Because I fit the racial profile the left demonized.

Also at risk are liberal cities. Remember how the democrats capitalized on the riots in THEIR cities, burning them down? I now live in a similar liberal city surrounded by conservative areas (Pittsburgh, Pa). We are at high risk of another liberal burning. So right now most of the people who could speak up and counter the current administration are staying eerily silent. That's historically a very bad thing. It's a Banana republic. The democrats are prosecuting their main political rival (Trump) for shit they did (Jan 6) so a worthless shitbag can stay in office. I won't lift a finger for him like I did for Trump. Trump was a good guy, no new wars under him. He sought out diplomacy.

And the pro war split started with Hillary vs Trump when Trump pushed out all the Bush era Neocons. The democrats are the party of George Bush now. Trump brought in the peace wing.

I want more international stability. I want absolutely NOTHING to do with traitors who turned their back on the constitution. We don't have a democracy right now. It's pure gloating on CNN on endless fake liberal charges. We've lost a generation of American democracy. This means the left lost too. Their vote doesn't matter any more than a conservative. If you are told on TV what to believe and it happens, you feel great. Thing is, what happens changes when the priority of the ruling class changes. Your vote won't stem that shift in focus. We've seen the left very recently (under Hillary) turn ultra pro-war.

It's better to just focus on bloc defense and upgrade our military ability (yes, military spending), make friends with similar blocs (Arab League, African Union, ECOWAS) and encourage similar civilization building efforts. Stopping coups like what happened in the US and Niger. We don't need more broken banana republic states. We don't need more confused old men like Biden blundering at ever move. We need to build international alliances and stabilize the international order, have more trade between actual democracies and get them technologically capable. That means DARPA is central. And it is costly. But it is the only thing proven to work. We've seen the ivy league university system absolutely fail, it turned fascist and woke.

And I'm unwilling to debate anyone supporting the tyranny. Fuck you for opposing democracy. It isn't worth a fake hearted debate. This shit has happened in history countless times. It tends to be resolved in a bloody manner. I'll have nothing to say to you sickos. 250 of democracy down the shitter for short term political gain, how fucking clever. It's gonna bite you in the end.

[Immanuel Can]

As to the tax dollar lost via the military industrial sector.... tough. Not a real problem.

No, it really, really IS the problem.

That's the whole reason for the war...and for the succession of useless foreign wars American has fought. It's the tax-fraud strategy of a politician's wildest dreams, and nothing else comes close to it. Billions of dollars just get to disappear off the accounting radar, and nobody knows where they are, when there's a war on.

So that's just a crazy thing to say...even if we forget about the billions being stolen from the poor and needy, to say nothing of the honest working folks in America and elsewhere, what it's going to, what it's being used for, is horrendous. And the poor people of Ukraine...what a horrible price they're paying for a tax-grab scheme run in other countries.

I cannot imagine how you could even write a line like that...

[Gary Childress]

Who on the "Left" is "campaigning for the perpetuation of war?" I'm certainly not (if you believe I'm a "leftist").

The Democrats certainly are, following the Bidens; but also a great number of the Republicans, such as Mike Pence and McConnell. Meanwhile, other Democrats, like Kennedy and Gabbard, are opposing it with the strenuous objection of their own party, as are a few Republicans, like DeSantis and Trump, who are being savagely backstabbed by their party. But it's really the majority of incumbent power-brokers on both sides who are insisting.

This is really not a partisan issue. Clearly, there are powermongers on both sides who want the war. The question is why you and I should want it, or why the people of Russia and Ukraine should want it.

Yes. I agree. No sane person wants this war. The next question is what should we do to stop it? Tulsi Gabbard isn't a Democrat last I heard, BTW. I believe she considers herself "independent" now. She has a lot of good sense. Both parties just suck up to their backers and their backers clearly want war as much as Putin and his backers. If the powers that are fighting in this war can't stop this war, then FUCK THEM, we the people will ALL have to do it FOR them (as usual while they sit on their worthless asses fighting between each other over market share).

[mickthinks]

Who on the "Left" is "campaigning for the perpetuation of war?" I'm certainly not (if you believe I'm a "leftist").

The Democrats certainly are, following the Bidens; but also a great number of the Republicans, such as Mike Pence and McConnell.

lol
Here we see Manny drawing the line between Left and Right in a position that only makes sense if Neo-Nazism is your centre.

And the Neo-Nazis are not against war in general; they are just against war with their allies, one of the most important being Putin.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know who is driving this or who to blame. At this point, we just need to stop it. War is incredibly contagious as history has repeatedly shown. We cannot afford another one and we can't afford to stoke our differences in order to stop it. Something has to give ground at this point.

[Flannel Jesus]

Wasn't it the Bush Jr. administration of your country, so the "right", that launched a series of wars in the 2000s?

Oh, sure. With enormous bipartisan support, but yes. And the Left did come out against those wars. It's a more recent shift, from my perspective, to where the Left is more intervention positive.

I don't think the left switched from being intervention negative in general to intervention positive in general. I think the left has just seen some particular interventions in the past as unwise or unjust, and now see this particular intervention as wise or just.

[Immanuel Can]

The next question is what should we do to stop it?

Vote for candidates that will stop the war. Right, now, that's the best anybody can do.

Tulsi Gabbard isn't a Democrat last I heard, BTW.

Ah, memory is so short...

Gabbard was a lead candidate for the Democrats, who was drummed out by the pro-Hellery party. It's very likely the same warmongers who forced her out.

Both parties just suck up to their backers and their backers clearly want war as much as Putin and his backers.

Exactly right. And this is what makes the war a non-partisan issue.

It's the human race against BOTH parties, if the truth be known. And they have a head start on all of us, in setting up things their way. And this is what makes election integrity such a cardinal issue for anybody who retains even a modicum of hope for the democratic process. Nobody but the power elite is served by the narratives that foggy elections are "inclusive." They're not. They're just corrupt.

[Immanuel Can]

Neo-Nazism

Ah, yes...the Left's bogeyman, used to justify all the evil they do...

[Atla]

Wasn't it the Bush Jr. administration of your country, so the "right", that launched a series of wars in the 2000s?

Oh, sure. With enormous bipartisan support, but yes. And the Left did come out against those wars. It's a more recent shift, from my perspective, to where the Left is more intervention positive.

I don't think the left switched from being intervention negative in general to intervention positive in general. I think the left has just seen some particular interventions in the past as unwise or unjust, and now see this particular intervention as wise or just.

And in my opinion, the "left" would be correct then. Make no mistake, Russia is irredeemable, it can't be reasoned with. That's why all these post-Soviet European countries joined NATO, Russia would try to overrun them and re-establish the Soviet Union the first chance it gets. And after that, it will try to wreck the US too, the first chance it gets. Maybe this time, with the help of China, they could succeed as well.

[Gary Childress]

Neo-Nazism

Ah, yes...the Left's bogeyman, used to justify all the evil they do...

Well, we could use the right's bogeyman, "Everyone is becoming fags and queers and society can't tolerate it anymore!"

[Gary Childress]

Oh, sure. With enormous bipartisan support, but yes. And the Left did come out against those wars. It's a more recent shift, from my perspective, to where the Left is more intervention positive.

I don't think the left switched from being intervention negative in general to intervention positive in general. I think the left has just seen some particular interventions in the past as unwise or unjust, and now see this particular intervention as wise or just.

And in my opinion, the "left" would be correct then. Make no mistake, Russia is irredeemable, it can't be reasoned with. That's why all these post-Soviet European countries joined NATO, Russia would try to overrun them and re-establish the Soviet Union the first chance it gets. And after that, it will try to wreck the US too, the first chance it gets. Maybe this time, with the help of China, they could succeed as well.

We have no choice but to reason with them. If the war is going to destroy us all, then we're not at a point where we have the luxury to scoff at Putin and the gang. Our only choice is to make concessions. History will eventually redeem us, even if we're going to pay a price in the short term. There's no price that can be linked to human extinction. We cannot draw a line and say, "At this point, we will consider Armageddon."

[Atla]

I don't think the left switched from being intervention negative in general to intervention positive in general. I think the left has just seen some particular interventions in the past as unwise or unjust, and now see this particular intervention as wise or just.

And in my opinion, the "left" would be correct then. Make no mistake, Russia is irredeemable, it can't be reasoned with. That's why all these post-Soviet European countries joined NATO, Russia would try to overrun them and re-establish the Soviet Union the first chance it gets. And after that, it will try to wreck the US too, the first chance it gets. Maybe this time, with the help of China, they could succeed as well.

We have no choice but to reason with them. If the war is going to destroy us all, then we're not at a point where we have the luxury to scoff at Putin and the gang. Our only choice is to make concessions. History will eventually redeem us, even if we're going to pay a price in the short term. There's no price that can be linked to human extinction. We cannot draw a line and say, "At this point, we will consider Armageddon."

Well then eventually, in a few years or decades, you'll have to let the Russians invade the US unopposed, because they will never stop. Are you willing to make that concession?

[Immanuel Can]

We have no choice but to reason with them.

Who is the "them" with whom we hope to "reason" so that the war ends?

This isn't about reason, or morality, or anything we can really reason with. This is about opportunists and power. Reason has no hold on such people...they think only in strategic terms, only of what stands to promote what they see as their own immediate interests.

What we can do is take away their power. We can refuse to go along with them or to grant them the means to do it. If we cannot do that, then there is no hope "reason" will achieve what that cannot.

[FlashDangerpants]

A couple of days ago, I posted this. It was more or less and afterthought, a footnote to something else what was being discussed. But what surprised me is that the thread immediately died. It went silent. It slid down the list and disappeared. Somebody even started a completely new thread with an identical title, as if it was really important that this thread did not continue, no matter what, and if necessary, was replaced with a thread pretending to be it, but not containing the offensive reflection.

Your conspiratorial theorising is getting quite advanced isn't it?

Did Soros delete your post?

[Gary Childress]

And in my opinion, the "left" would be correct then. Make no mistake, Russia is irredeemable, it can't be reasoned with. That's why all these post-Soviet European countries joined NATO, Russia would try to overrun them and re-establish the Soviet Union the first chance it gets. And after that, it will try to wreck the US too, the first chance it gets. Maybe this time, with the help of China, they could succeed as well.

We have no choice but to reason with them. If the war is going to destroy us all, then we're not at a point where we have the luxury to scoff at Putin and the gang. Our only choice is to make concessions. History will eventually redeem us, even if we're going to pay a price in the short term. There's no price that can be linked to human extinction. We cannot draw a line and say, "At this point, we will consider Armageddon."

Well then eventually, in a few years or decades, you'll have to let the Russians invade the US unopposed, because they will never stop. Are you willing to make that concession?

If we continue at this pace, breaking our economy, we won't have any choice but to concede victory anyway. We won't be able to afford sling shots for our own army if we keep going.