Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3229
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Sertorio » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:13 am

Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:42 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:30 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:24 am
RT’s stated mission is to offer an “alternative perspective on major global events”, but the world according to RT is often downright surreal. Fringe opinion takes centre stage. Reporting is routinely bolstered by testimony from experts you have never heard of, representing institutions you have never heard of.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
Milo: "It is the RUSSIANS !!"
The Randolph Bourne Institute was founded in 2001 and states that it promotes "a non-interventionist foreign policy for the United States as the best way of fostering a peaceful, more prosperous world.' [1].

On its website, which hasn't been updated since 2002, it states that it runs Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com states on its website that "our politics are libertarian" and that the founders "were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of 'Left' and 'Right'." [2]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/R ... _Institute
About the author of the article quoted by me:
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon
Also https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html for an autobiographical view...

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Jim the Moron » Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:30 am

"Ghostriders of Baghdad" - and perhaps elsewhere . . .


User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3971
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Doc » Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:46 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:13 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:42 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:30 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:24 am
RT’s stated mission is to offer an “alternative perspective on major global events”, but the world according to RT is often downright surreal. Fringe opinion takes centre stage. Reporting is routinely bolstered by testimony from experts you have never heard of, representing institutions you have never heard of.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
Milo: "It is the RUSSIANS !!"
The Randolph Bourne Institute was founded in 2001 and states that it promotes "a non-interventionist foreign policy for the United States as the best way of fostering a peaceful, more prosperous world.' [1].

On its website, which hasn't been updated since 2002, it states that it runs Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com states on its website that "our politics are libertarian" and that the founders "were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of 'Left' and 'Right'." [2]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/R ... _Institute
About the author of the article quoted by me:
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon
Also https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html for an autobiographical view...
Ok ... Who else insists on foreign interference to cover up their own failures? Oh yeah...




"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:09 am

The OP article is the sort of pretentious, lazy pastiche that can impress certain people but it mostly appears here because
[RT's] overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3229
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Sertorio » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:44 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:09 am
The OP article is the sort of pretentious, lazy pastiche that can impress certain people but it mostly appears here because
[RT's] overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
In case you missed it:
About the author of the article quoted by me:

"Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon."

Also: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html - for an autobiographical view...
The only pretentious party here is you who can't recognize a competent comment from a "lazy pastiche"... But I suppose any opinion which differs from yours will be a "lazy pastiche" in your eyes. Or maybe you are already too old to learn anything different and prefer to repeat the same erroneous views over and over again...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:08 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:44 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:09 am
The OP article is the sort of pretentious, lazy pastiche that can impress certain people but it mostly appears here because
[RT's] overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
In case you missed it:
About the author of the article quoted by me:

"Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon."

Also: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html - for an autobiographical view...
The only pretentious party here is you who can't recognize a competent comment from a "lazy pastiche"... But I suppose any opinion which differs from yours will be a "lazy pastiche" in your eyes. Or maybe you are already too old to learn anything different and prefer to repeat the same erroneous views over and over again...
Ad hominem with no attempt to engage the topic, again.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3229
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Sertorio » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:12 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:08 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:44 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:09 am
The OP article is the sort of pretentious, lazy pastiche that can impress certain people but it mostly appears here because
[RT's] overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
In case you missed it:
About the author of the article quoted by me:

"Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon."

Also: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html - for an autobiographical view...
The only pretentious party here is you who can't recognize a competent comment from a "lazy pastiche"... But I suppose any opinion which differs from yours will be a "lazy pastiche" in your eyes. Or maybe you are already too old to learn anything different and prefer to repeat the same erroneous views over and over again...
Ad hominem with no attempt to engage the topic, again.
You keep criticizing the sources of news or comments you dislike, without any consideration for the quality and experience of the writers. Had you taken the time to read the biographical note I posted, you would have seen that there wasn't anything pretentious or pastiche in the author of the opinion quoted by me. But I suppose it is a lot easier to declare the incompetence of those writers than to counter their views. To say that you are the incompetent party is not an ad hominem comment, it is the plain truth.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:54 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:12 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:08 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:44 am
Milo wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:09 am
The OP article is the sort of pretentious, lazy pastiche that can impress certain people but it mostly appears here because
[RT's] overarching narrative is a tale of the west’s unrelenting decline.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ssia-today
In case you missed it:
About the author of the article quoted by me:

"Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War, is available for preorder on Amazon."

Also: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html - for an autobiographical view...
The only pretentious party here is you who can't recognize a competent comment from a "lazy pastiche"... But I suppose any opinion which differs from yours will be a "lazy pastiche" in your eyes. Or maybe you are already too old to learn anything different and prefer to repeat the same erroneous views over and over again...
Ad hominem with no attempt to engage the topic, again.
You keep criticizing the sources of news or comments you dislike, without any consideration for the quality and experience of the writers. Had you taken the time to read the biographical note I posted, you would have seen that there wasn't anything pretentious or pastiche in the author of the opinion quoted by me. But I suppose it is a lot easier to declare the incompetence of those writers than to counter their views. To say that you are the incompetent party is not an ad hominem comment, it is the plain truth.
OK, he's a passed-over-major who can't sell his ravings to a real periodical, so he's posting on a no-name blog.

Any better?

neverfail
Posts: 4750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by neverfail » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:42 pm

Okay Sertorio: since my participation on this website is not a gainful occupation where I am paid by the hour but a pastime where I volunteer my free time (such as I have available - which it not a lot); I only speed read through sections of your opening quote in order to get the "drift". Likewise I did not pay particular attention to other links provided since.

However in so far as US foreign policy is at issue in this discussion I would like to submit the following:
Of course, later, in 1994, Bill Clinton decided to expand NATO eastward despite the various assurances that the previous administration had offered Gorbachev—and despite legendary diplomat George F. Kennan’s repeated warnings.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629
It seems that in the USA you do not get bi-partisan agreement on foreign policy unless the USA has cause to feel threatened by a foreign power - as during the Cold War. With the collapse of the USSR empire that threat was removed and US foreign policy ever since has been adrift.

With historical hindsight it would seem that George Bush the elder gave verbal reassurances to the leadership of the collapsing USSR that NATO would not expand its borders any further east than East Germany (which was due to be incorporated into the Federal Republic and therefore would become part of NATO because of that). I believe that George Bush meant it at the time as he was a man of honour.

The mistake made by the Soviet leadership (Mikhail Gorbachev) was that they did not get the Bush Administration to sign a solemn treaty guaranteeing this.

It seems that Bush's successor in office Bill Clinton, a man of lesser character than Bush (not noted for being a man of honour), did not feel morally bound to abide by his successor-in-office's assurances to Moscow. Of course the subsequent expansion of NATO east right up to Russia's borders was seen in Moscow as a betrayal of trust by the USA. It still is I believe and one can hardly blame the Russians from seeing it that way.

With hindsight I have long believed that it would have been better for posterity had President George Bush the elder, despite the man's reputation for being over-cautious (a wimp?), won the 1992 election instead of Bill Clinton for the sake of policy continuity.

There you have it! Ever since US foreign policy came adrift post-Cold War it has become hostage to the whims of different US administrations and correspondingly shambolic, inconsistent, as a consequence.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Strategic Thinking for the Less Educated...

Post by Milo » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:58 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:42 pm
Okay Sertorio: since my participation on this website is not a gainful occupation where I am paid by the hour but a pastime where I volunteer my free time (such as I have available - which it not a lot); I only speed read through sections of your opening quote in order to get the "drift". Likewise I did not pay particular attention to other links provided since.

However in so far as US foreign policy is at issue in this discussion I would like to submit the following:
Of course, later, in 1994, Bill Clinton decided to expand NATO eastward despite the various assurances that the previous administration had offered Gorbachev—and despite legendary diplomat George F. Kennan’s repeated warnings.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629
It seems that in the USA you do not get bi-partisan agreement on foreign policy unless the USA has cause to feel threatened by a foreign power - as during the Cold War. With the collapse of the USSR empire that threat was removed and US foreign policy ever since has been adrift.

With historical hindsight it would seem that George Bush the elder gave verbal reassurances to the leadership of the collapsing USSR that NATO would not expand its borders any further east than East Germany (which was due to be incorporated into the Federal Republic and therefore would become part of NATO because of that). I believe that George Bush meant it at the time as he was a man of honour.

The mistake made by the Soviet leadership (Mikhail Gorbachev) was that they did not get the Bush Administration to sign a solemn treaty guaranteeing this.

It seems that Bush's successor in office Bill Clinton, a man of lesser character than Bush (not noted for being a man of honour), did not feel morally bound to abide by his successor-in-office's assurances to Moscow. Of course the subsequent expansion of NATO east right up to Russia's borders was seen in Moscow as a betrayal of trust by the USA. It still is I believe and one can hardly blame the Russians from seeing it that way.

With hindsight I have long believed that it would have been better for posterity had President George Bush the elder, despite the man's reputation for being over-cautious (a wimp?), won the 1992 election instead of Bill Clinton for the sake of policy continuity.

There you have it! Ever since US foreign policy came adrift post-Cold War it has become hostage to the whims of different US administrations and correspondingly shambolic, inconsistent, as a consequence.
How can any country forbid other countries from joining alliances? That would be contrary to international law.

If the US did this, they didn't, the USSR shouldn't have believed them.

I appreciate that on planet Putin this is what is expected but that is not how civilization is supposed to work.

Post Reply