|
Post by Beth on Aug 16, 2021 16:46:00 GMT
I have created this area for current events hopefully to keep the LBH discussion more on track.
This is not an area for political discussions that belongs on a different board. I know that events have a political aspect but please limit it. If I feel a discussion is going off kilter. I will step in. Remember that one of the most import aspects of life is the friends that surround us, that is more important than scoring a political point.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 16, 2021 19:42:45 GMT
Thanks Beth, I will open with this news snippit.
I see China and Russia have both kept their embassies open in Kabul, they are open to talks with the new owners and probably to be best buddies soon. Ian
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 16, 2021 21:59:04 GMT
Well Ian, I think you must have missed the continuation of the Afghan thread, so I will answer you there and keep this one free for other subjects that may be of current interest.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 17, 2021 5:22:22 GMT
Well I did have three choices Chuck, the Afghanistan one said content moved so I guessed that posts had ceased and moved. Beth said all Afghan stuff has been moved to the current events page.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 17, 2021 16:58:51 GMT
Sorry my mistake that should have been given a thread under Current events. I was trying to get it done quickly because I had an appointment coming up which of course meant it took me about 3 times longer than it should have.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Nov 11, 2021 1:14:22 GMT
HAPPY BIRTHDAY UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
SEMPER FI
DAN
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2021 22:31:23 GMT
Tomorrow is the 80th Anniversary of the Day of Infamy
REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR AND TO HELL WITH SPAIN, or was it, REMEMBER THE MAINE AND TO HELL WITH JAPAN. Where is William Randolph Hearst when you need him? What the world really needs is some good old fashioned Yellow Journalism. I despise slogans, but never EVER forget how unprepared we were in both instances. There is a lesson to be learned there, but we, as a country, will never learn them.
Spain got a bad rap for the Maine. Negligence on our part, and the sugar industry, caused a war that did not need being fought. I am not sure if the Pacific conflict was really all that necessary either. Washington was correct though. The best way to prevent war is to always be prepared for it.
To understand the second sentence in the third paragraph, one must take a really deep dive into Japanese between the wars politics. If you do, you just may come to the same conclusions I have.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Dec 7, 2021 21:05:41 GMT
Spain got blamed for the Maine because the US was spoiling for war in the hopes to gain control of the Caribbean as well as parts of the Pacific of the Pacific.
Steven and I were discussing Pearl Harbor as well as 9/11 and how young people just don't seem to understand how certain events have changed their lives. It is a shame in a way that they aren't taught about the steps of those who came before so hopefully then can learn, understand and if possible not make the same mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 7, 2021 22:22:06 GMT
As I said Spain got a bum rap. The sugar industry wanted control of Cuba, and they were chomping at the bit for our government to stick their nose in, fund, and support the insurrection that was already under way. The Maine was sent to Havana harbor to show the flag. Unfortunately it suffered a fatal internal explosion (most probably coal fumes). Within hours Spain was blamed the excuse in place, and people like Hurst beating the war drums in his newspaper. Totally unnecessary conflict. Sort of reminds you of the aftermath of 9/11. Do something in haste or for the wrong reasons, and you are going to get bitten, by the snake of your own making.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Dec 7, 2021 23:05:35 GMT
I know that it is considered almost heretical but I so wish that 9/11 would have been handled as a crime instead of an act of war. I suspect we would have gotten a lot more support internationally. Instead it became a theological war which no one can win and usually end in a whimper with many deaths and nothing gained.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 8, 2021 1:15:27 GMT
I do not disagree Beth. In my view it should have been handled in two phases
1) As a crime, which it was. Murder is a crime. Murder on an aircraft, or using an aircraft, of which 9/11 was both., makes it so. Conspiracy itself is a crime, and 9/11 involved a conspiracy. Anyone involved should have been sought out, apprehended, and prosecuted in Federal Court in the United States.
2) It was also supported and facilitated by what can only be termed accurately as a band of lawless individuals, much like pirates on the high seas, would be dealt with. We should have inserted the appropriate size force into Afghanistan, no more than a light brigade, heavily reinforced by Army aviation, and supported by all the Naval and Air Force combat air assets that could be brought to bear. The objective of this force would be to severely punish the opposition, but not attempt to obliterate them, or nation build, or most of all not try to remake the society of Afghanistan. When sufficient punishment is administered - leave. In concert with this I would think a clear demonstration to Afghanistan's next door neighbor would be appropriate as well. Namely, you screw with us, or support this gang of bandits in any way, and we find out about it, and we will, we will turn your sorry ass country into ground glass. Do you understand?
We must be appropriate to offense. We are not out to change the world through warfare. The example we set as a nation and a people, should be the only method we employ.
Revenge is an activity, that once entered into, requires the digging of two graves, one of them for ourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2021 2:10:02 GMT
In my view, Bush gave the Taliban the opportunity to treat the attack as a crime when he asked/told them to surrender Bin Laden. When they refused, I think was an act of war and I also think Just War Theory supports that.
OTOH, we partly responded correctly, but some people with their theories of air power and such (how many times does it have to be discredited) prevented sending an adequate force to accomplish the mission, alhtough I would judge displacing the Taliban was good, the fact that we missed Bin Laden and the gang was bad. But then instead of saying to the people who took over, "So Long and Thanks For All The Fish" we tried to remake Aghan society/politics. Then we went into Iraq and made the same mistake, only there was little or no justification for the act. However, I don't think Bush lied, he was deceived as was, among others, the Iraqi Military. So well they got themselves whacked.
Shinseki and a few others tried to warn the powers that be, but were not listened to. Poor Colin Powell perhaps didn't question enough, was deceived, and/or let his loyalty carry him a bit too far.
Punitive Expeditions can be effective, but they have issues. We never did get what we wanted out of Mexico.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 8, 2021 16:07:45 GMT
Mike: The only way one can learn from their mistakes, is to make those mistakes.
Regarding our off board conversations about battle groups, this is exactly what I had in mind in proposing the structure I most favor. Instead of a brigade tied to one locality,two or three battle groups would be much more effective in punitive operations in two or three different areas.
Having an attack aviation battle group inserted in the Ukraine with a couple of airborne battle groups in the nearby area might give Vlad a little pause this morning as well.
I don't believe I will ever forgive the Bush administration for the way they treated Rick Shinseki. It's alright to disagree with him, that politics, but to disrespect him the way they did is shameful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2021 10:18:49 GMT
Here is my issue with you general plan. When we dropped into Afghanistan I recall two things. The Rangers and the 82nd Airborne seizing an airfield and SOF guys running amok in conjunction with Northern Alliance groups. Between them, we did a pretty credible job with getting in and achieving an acceptable result, thought not perhaps the victory that was needed. Likewise, when we blew into Iraq in 2003, a force much larger than a battle group but smaller than I thought would be needed relatively easily got into Baghdad, deposed the government, and then once again we threw away the victory by disbanding the Iraqi Army and denazifying the country which resulted in a lot of pissed off people.
How do we get out of the place we run amok? In Afghanistan, we arguably could have moved all our people to the airfield and flown out. There wasn't a lot of hostility there and we probably couild have got away pretty clean. In Iraq, we probably could have withdrawn in fairly good order to Kuwait, but no one else was letting our ground troops into their countries: Not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, certainly not Iran; only Kuwait. It remains to be seen if we could have got out right after we toppled Hussein. There were some pretty tough battles to get up there, just not from organized forces. They almost wiped out an Aviation Brigade.
Ukraine, like it neighbors, the Baltics, Poland, Belarus, and even the Russian frontier is not defensible. We've seen that time and time again. That's why the Soviet Union wanted a buffer zone, so other countries could get destroyed before Mother Russia. I'm not sure what 3 - 5 battlegroups would do to be able to assist Ukraine. On the other hand, the Russians have to kibble together their Battalion Tactical Groups which are sort of battlegroups. But they are right next door.
Battlegroups could work in Mexico, Canada, perhaps in Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, etc. Out strength and ability decline the further away from home we go. We were very successful in fighting a two, maybe even 3 front war in 1940-1945, but today we couldn't even handle two "little" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Iran was perfectly suited to mess around in both of them.
The Europeans don't seem to be much interested in defending themselves. We can't defend Ukraine, Poland, or the Baltics to "prevent' minor incursions on their terrain or even reincorporation into the WP/Soviet Union.
Perhaps we should withdraw and enforce the Monroe Doctrine. Stop the Chinese New Silk Road from having any points in the Americas to our Pacific Island Chain and the African Coast?
Where is the frontier that is worth the bones of a single, solitary, American Grenadier?
I don't know that we are even capable of even solving our own problems at home. Some people think the probability of a civil war is as high as 75-90%. I worry about the next election. It may well be bought or stolen. I also worry about the creeping of religious issues into law/precedent in the supreme court and congress. The abortion fight is one example. I'm for abortion in some circumstances. I'm an athiest, but believe life starts at conception. If we say a 'christian' baker doesn't have to make cakes for gay couples, then what is to stop us from adding a bunch of other groups/races/parties etc.
It's too fucking early for this. Perhaps I should drink more.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 9, 2021 16:22:41 GMT
I agree. It is too early in the morning.
And as evening rolls around:
The Soviet Union wanted a buffer zone and so does Russia, or at least Russian leadership. If you do not draw lines, cognizant of the possible consequences, they will obtain by default, what, as of now, they must fight for. Fighting is not a desirable state of affairs, but the ultimate loser of that fight will be Russia, in that their economy cannot endure and prolonged conflict. If I know that, and you know that, I am fairly sure that Putin knows that. My gut tells me that he is bluffing, and trying to appear he is holding a full house, when he is lucky if his hand has a pair of deuces.
All the other stuff is politics, and while I agree with you on a few of your statements made, I am also an optimist in thinking that the morality, and moral courage of the American people will win out. For instance I happen to agree with you on the moment life begins. That is a personal judgment on both our parts, based upon our own personal beliefs. Others among us differ, and in a democracy they get to vote the same as we do. I believe there are a number of sound moral reasons a woman would wish to terminate a pregnancy. What I strongly object to though is terminating a pregnancy as an irresponsible method of birth control, which I find morally repugnant. What must be decided though is law determined by religious morality alone, or the will of the people. I can only speak about how I feel about the matter, but I will obey the law no matter what the outcome.
I suspect with regard to the possibility of a civil war breaking out that all too many people watch cable TV and are driven to those opinions by big mouth sons of bitches who would be the first to run.
|
|