A vow to our leaders

[Gary Childress]

I could chime into this discussion on behalf of defending the country that sacrifices some pride and influence in order to bring peace and end the killing, but since I don't know if and who that might be, I'll remain silent for now.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't care who "wins" the war in Ukraine. I vow that I will stand by and vigorously defend the first leader, (between Biden and Putin at the moment) who will step back and deliberately "lose" the war in Ukraine.

From the look of it Ukraine has lost and quite terribly so. Millions as refugees and (if the numbers I’ve heard are correct 300,000 + dead and twice that amount wounded. My understanding is that Russia has by far the superior military position and Ukraine the inferior one. And with no chance of “winning”.

My principal source is Douglas McGregor who has seemed to me the most familiar with the conduct of war, and the region. I’ve wondered though if I’ll end up realizing I was duped for believing his analysis. Time will tell.

Who you emotionally defend or condemn, you unhinged woman, makes no difference at all in this world.

As far as sound arguments for the conduct of war go, and if McGregor’s analysis is correct, Russia has a coherent position. The principal power that provoked this war — the US — has zero excuse for the fomenting of this war. And those chickens will come home to roost.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I give you my word. May I truly burn in hell if I break it.

Aren't you a God hating athiest?

He’s technically a God-hating agnostic ….

It’s an oddly complex anti-theology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What happened to we need to fight for our own survival? How did that suddenly morph into neither side is ethical? You're playing some kind of game here and I'm not understanding it.

His argument seems to be based on the realpolitik view that political and governmental systems generally have to dupe their citizens (in varying degrees) in order to hold power. And that behind those sorts of systems there stands police and military power.

The US, according to some analysts, is a Federal government that manages a world empire. It is tough to reconcile the necessities of such power-management with the high ideals of the (original) Founders. This points to a great conflict of interests.

Who needs to “fight for our own survival”? The governing power that serves those far-flung enterprises that private capital owns?

Or the individual citizens?

See, we are in a tremendous conflict because though patriotism is a civic virtue, we are confused about what or whose interests are the right ones to defend.

You must realize that 20+ years of dubious wars have jaded those who are asked to fight them. Whose interests are served?

[Constantine]

OSINT isn't about duping anyone, exact opposite. I'm a John Adam's Machiavellian who took note of the positive results organizations like NATO had on curbing imperialism and stabilizing evil societies- first and foremost those in NATO. I wouldn't support Warsaw Pact because everyone was held at gunpoint in ot, and many countries fought to stay out or tried to leave prior to final collapse.

Basically I want the freest possible society. Blocs of properly constituted are the best guarantee. They are a natural extention of state vs national separation of powers. My philosophy is firmly rooted in the writings of the founding fathers and a analysis of the war periods after.

And I strongly oppose a general ignorance on statecraft or warfare. I'm largely protective of pacifism (go out of my way to defend that) but insist people be educated enough to have competent conversations. That's why I gave Gary some boolean searches to monitor in Ukraine with some associated time table factors for his position in another thread on cluster munitions. If he is going to argue stuff, best to have a accurate argument a general or congressman or diplomat can understand and follow. You need to have debates on these things.

I'm also impressed my positions has to be analyzed by other positions NOT MY OWN on this website. I only encounter this on this website, some weird hermeneutics of comparing to unlike things. I'm hardly the first philosopher to hold to this position.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I strongly oppose a general ignorance on statecraft or warfare.

Both of which are now so complex as they have evolved. I am curious to know your thought on 4th and 5th generation warfare and also to know if you believe we are in war now?

How would one go about correcting ignorance?

I wasn’t aware that Adams was so up on Machiavelli. Was his admiration slanted toward The Discourses or (more problematically) The Prince?

John Adams was unique among the Founding Fathers in that he actually read and took seriously Machiavelli's ideas. In his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, Adams quoted extensively from Machiavelli and he openly acknowledged an intellectual debt to the Florentine statesman. Adams praised Machiavelli for having been “the first” to have “revived the ancient politics” and he insisted that the “world” was much indebted to Machiavelli for “the revival of reason in matters of government.” What could Adams have meant by these extraordinary statements? The following article examines the Machiavellian ideas and principles Adams incorporated into his political thought as well as those that he rejected. Drawing upon evidence found in an unpublished fragment, Part one argues that the political epistemology that Adams employed in the Defence can be traced to Machiavelli's new modes and orders. Part two presents Adams's critique of Machiavelli's constitutionalism.

An interesting article I quickly glossed. Might read it later ….

[Constantine]

American Machiavellians tend to support republics, vs later Europeans like Nietzsche who went with the prince. The older American branch (as opposed to Nietzschean branch) was colored in the classics and the humanist traditions. I prefer Ibn Khaldun over Machiavelli but still use him and others.

Our best era in philosophy was precisely in the era Europe was convinced we had no philosophers. And I'm proud of that. One of the side effects as a republic is we can't have a princely conspiracy with the complex separation of powers the US has. If Hoover's power grab in the FBI is any indication, I think Biden's current corruption (I call him a unconstitutional Tyrant, but let's use corruption here) won't be seriously tackled by congress for a good 30 years by initiating new laws? Why? That's how long it will take to turn over current state department and DOD personnel, and for enough young employees currently starting a 40 year career feeling disenchanted to come into power and talk to senators (who are like 10 years old right now) to change course with new laws. Just like Liberalism used to be centered around a watershed moment (Richard Nixon carrying on Hoover's legacy), some future Jackass of a president will be caught doing something very Biden with all the current liberals either dead or retired in some home, not having the votes anymore. Population will snap on that future douchebag, for doing the current status Quo of today. American machiavellians set up a system to eventually undue such people and movements, butbwe are very pragmatic and down to earth in knowing its a generational game at times. Also know American machiavellianism never died out, so I'm going off a long Paleo-Conservative tradition stretching a few hundred years of statecraft. Adam wasn't the earliest but most stand out early thinker, but no means the last either. US is drenched in this tradition.

[Gary Childress]

American Machiavellians tend to support republics, vs later Europeans like Nietzsche who went with the prince. The older American branch (as opposed to Nietzschean branch) was colored in the classics and the humanist traditions. I prefer Ibn Khaldun over Machiavelli but still use him and others.

Our best era in philosophy was precisely in the era Europe was convinced we had no philosophers. And I'm proud of that. One of the side effects as a republic is we can't have a princely conspiracy with the complex separation of powers the US has. If Hoover's power grab in the FBI is any indication, I think Biden's current corruption (I call him a unconstitutional Tyrant, but let's use corruption here) won't be seriously tackled by congress for a good 30 years by initiating new laws? Why? That's how long it will take to turn over current state department and DOD personnel, and for enough young employees currently starting a 40 year career feeling disenchanted to come into power and talk to senators (who are like 10 years old right now) to change course with new laws. Just like Liberalism used to be centered around a watershed moment (Richard Nixon carrying on Hoover's legacy), some future Jackass of a president will be caught doing something very Biden with all the current liberals either dead or retired in some home, not having the votes anymore. Population will snap on that future douchebag, for doing the current status Quo of today. American machiavellians set up a system to eventually undue such people and movements, butbwe are very pragmatic and down to earth in knowing its a generational game at times. Also know American machiavellianism never died out, so I'm going off a long Paleo-Conservative tradition stretching a few hundred years of statecraft. Adam wasn't the earliest but most stand out early thinker, but no means the last either. US is drenched in this tradition.

Biden is losing the war in Ukraine. So you don't like him. What is Biden supposed to do? Crank up the arms industry and get us rolling for world war III? Pull your head out of the sand and take a stand against militarism. Or do you think repeating the same "realipolitik" "wisdom" that has served human civilization through EVERY conflict including two world wars is going to give us any better results than the world we've lived in until now??? Did Nixons' "saving face for America" by bombing the shit out of N. Vietnam before peace talks give us peace after we fought against the North Vietnamese in their civil war? Biden is thinking outside the box that you BLOCKHEADS are confined in. "Realpolitik" has NOT brought the world peace. Stop thinking it will. TRY SOMETHING NEW!!!! LEARN!!!!

[Constantine]

Biden lost the summer offensive, and this was done effectively last fall. Doesn't mean he lost the war. Trench warfare wars can go on for many years, look up the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, or WW1. It may be up to a decade before we really know, and Biden won't be alive by then.

It's like saying WW1 was lost during the Battle of the Somme. It wasn't. Happened in the middle of the war and brits won. There is a reason the war is chronicled by years and campaigns and not by a single season's results. Biden lost the Spring and Summer offensive of 2023. Ukraine is making some progress, they might make some surprising pushes around Bakhmut and between Kherson and Crimea..... it's possible but doubtful.

[Gary Childress]

Biden lost the summer offensive, and this was done effectively last fall. Doesn't mean he lost the war. Trench warfare wars can go on for many years, look up the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, or WW1. It may be up to a decade before we really know, and Biden won't be alive by then.

It's like saying WW1 was lost during the Battle of the Somme. It wasn't. Happened in the middle of the war and brits won. There is a reason the war is chronicled by years and campaigns and not by a single season's results. Biden lost the Spring and Summer offensive of 2023. Ukraine is making some progress, they might make some surprising pushes around Bakhmut and between Kherson and Crimea..... it's possible but doubtful.

Did the British truly win WW1 any more than they won the Battle of the Somme? Stop thinking like a strategist. Go buy your mom or girlfriend or someone walking down the street flowers and keep your money from going into taxes to create more instruments of death and destruction.

OR DON'T. YOU DO YOU.

[Constantine]

Even better.... how about you study strategy texts, so you can better argue your position? I can give you a starter list of some classical texts.

[Gary Childress]

Even better.... how about you study strategy texts, so you can better argue your position? I can give you a starter list of some classical texts.

What do I need to study war for? I'm not interested in war. I leave that to people who want to fight in the Somme and other places. MORON!

[Constantine]

Dude, the people who fought in the Somme fought there only because people didn't study strategy. It's why it was a idiotic massacre.

[Gary Childress]

Dude, the people who fought in the Somme fought there only because people didn't study strategy. It's why it was a idiotic massacre.

They also fought there because people thought they needed to fight. WTF do you want to fight for? Stop clinging to something we can't keep. Learn to negotiate peacefully with others for things instead of fighting them for it.

[Constantine]

I do negotiate peacefully. Core to my outlook is a very strong diplomatic corps. Stronger than we currently have in the west. I'd triple that budget, with a third of that going to AI able to survey the international web and predict when the shit is likely to hit the fan in a few months if our human counterparts in the state department don't respond accordingly.