West Provokes Russia to Protect Russians in Ukraine

[stuper1]

Yes, Vinny, they've lied to us 100 times before, but this time they're not lying to us. It makes perfect sense to me. Charlie Brown felt the same way every time he went to kick the football that Lucy was holding for him.

Are you taking the position that anything the government says to us regarding a war is always a lie? Anything it says to us regarding the military? Anything it says about anything?

I'm truly trying to get a definitive statement from you regarding what you do trust the government for and what you do not trust it for.

My definitive statement is that my default position on anything the US government says about foreign wars is that it is probably a lie unless they can provide a lot of evidence to back up what they are saying. They don't deserve the presumption of truth at this point, after all the lies they have put out over the decades. So, take everything they say with a grain of salt unless they can back it up with a lot of evidence. I've done my own digging on the Ukraine situation, and I haven't found that they can back up what they are saying with a lot of evidence. Now, I freely admit that I could be wrong. All my digging has been done from behind my computer screen. I haven't been digging out actual physical evidence in the field in Ukraine, but then again neither has anybody else who is commenting in this forum. My own research from behind my computer screen leads me to believe that NATO is much more at fault in this war than Russia is.

And when we bring up the Cuba missile crisis everybody freely admits they would have no problem with the US attacking Cuba if Russia wouldn't stand down with their missiles. But somehow it's different when we're over meddling in Ukraine. And Ukraine is even worse, because they were mistreating their Russian-speaking citizens also. Imagine there was a conclave of American emigres living in Cuba, being mistreated by the Cuban government, and then Russia refuses to remove their missiles. How much more justification would people think the US had to attack Cuba under those conditions?

[Kbg]

Let’s run down the list objectively as to stated reason and reality. If you have the opinion the war was stupid, we stayed too long and we shouldn’t have gotten involved great. I share that view in some cases. However, this has no bearing on if the government lied to you about why we were getting involved.

First Gulf War - Iraq invaded Kuwait Fact

Bosnia-Kosovo - Prevent genocide of Bosnian Muslims Fact

Afghanistan - Response to 9/11 Fact

Second Gulf War - WMDs and links to terrorism intel failure on the first and lied to on the second

Continued anti-terrorist engagement in the Middle East - continued suppression of jihadist groups (primarily ISIS) Fact

Of note, all had supporting UN resolutions. 80% truth, 20% lied to/mislead.

Smart politicians in a democracy understand lying about the reasons for getting in a war is a long run losing proposition. The truth will come out and highly likely due to leaks from government employees who love their country and care about doing the right thing for the right reasons. Rock on “Deep Staters” who defy the President.

I’m guessing LBJ and GB 2 would have liked a do over…history won’t be and isn’t kind to what happened in Vietnam and Iraq 2.

[seajay]

I say as an American practicing Christian, God willing Russia will win and teach the warmongering American leadership class to stop meddling in other countries' business, most of which they do not because of a selfless desire to spread freedom and democracy to the rest of the world but just to fatten up their own wallets.

Much of the world has already moved away from the US dollar, based on 300 million population out of global 8 billion - having the advantage of being able to export inflation (higher standard of living for its citizens). As Arabia, Middle East, Africa, S. America, India, China, Russia ..etc. replace the 'there is no alternative' (US dollar) ... with a accepted alternative, perhaps also with Europe moving towards that alternative, then the US will be considerably weakened and its population relatively poorer. The way, as ever, to maintain control is by having the larger/more powerful military capabilities, that a further moving away from US dollar dominance would reduce.

American's however seem content for such a change. Take for instance Britain/Northern-Ireland where the population for generations have expressed the desire to remain part of Britain, but where the US instates IRA members as its US/NI envoys in attempts to have NI surrender to moving over to being under Irish control. Following the 'troubles' over a century ago when Ireland was given independence, within hours of that declaration Ulster (northern ireland) had applied for and were granted exclusion from that, and remained part of the UK. Such meddling is more inclined to result in a move away from supporting the US to support its Dollar. Similarly France/Germany would be perfectly content to drop support of the Dollar for a 'more popular' alternative. If/as/when that occurs then US debt becomes a major US issue, not a problem that can be exported. $250,000 debt currently for each and every US taxpayer that could easily increase multiples during a transition. A possible move from where other foreign workers supply the US with low cost products to where American workers are relatively poor and work in order to supply foreign richer countries with products. It takes only $4000 of wealth to be in the worlds richest 50%, avoidance of transition to being in the poorer half is something that many might consider to be worth fighting for. The US has plenty of free space to open up its borders to mass migration from S. America, Mexico, wherever, and balloon its population to perhaps 1 billion or more. Lowering ones considerably high standard of living to be generous to others is however more inclined to just add to the numbers of 'poor', has very minimal if any effect from wealth redistribution across many.

[glennds]

Our military industrial complex, defense contractor industry, and unfettered lobby will cause us to err to the side of militarism for the obvious reasons.

However, you should also realize politicians know how to count votes and they do on this issue. If you are in the group of Americans who think the military is too big...well 84% of Americans don't think the same as you do. In fact, the percent of Americans who think the military isn't strong enough is double or more (almost always) than your take.

It's not so much that that the military is too big. When the weighty decision to take military action occurs, it seems to me it is going to happen at a table where military advisors have a prominent advisory seat. Military advisors are going to recommend military action in the same uncanny way that surgeons have a habit of recommending surgery in the majority of patient consultations. It's not that it's for nefarious reasons. It's just what they do, call it the lens through which they view the world.
So I'm saying there is a decision bias in favor of military action for reasons to do with natural dynamics. Add to this the cost of inaction (WWII) and the imprint it left on policy for a long time.

If you believe the history (and I do), then the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good instruction on where civilian elected and appointed leadership beat back the pressure from military advisors to engage. Not easy to do. This is another reason to marvel at the structure that places elected representative leadership in charge of the military. Not just the CIC, but Congress' role too.
Anyone can say what they like about politicians and the deep state, and they may very well be right, but the original architecture of the system was well conceived for good reasons.

[yankees60]

Our military industrial complex, defense contractor industry, and unfettered lobby will cause us to err to the side of militarism for the obvious reasons.

However, you should also realize politicians know how to count votes and they do on this issue. If you are in the group of Americans who think the military is too big...well 84% of Americans don't think the same as you do. In fact, the percent of Americans who think the military isn't strong enough is double or more (almost always) than your take.

It's not so much that that the military is too big. When the weighty decision to take military action occurs, it seems to me it is going to happen at a table where military advisors have a prominent advisory seat. Military advisors are going to recommend military action in the same uncanny way that surgeons have a habit of recommending surgery in the majority of patient consultations. It's not that it's for nefarious reasons. It's just what they do, call it the lens through which they view the world.
So I'm saying there is a decision bias in favor of military action for reasons to do with natural dynamics. Add to this the cost of inaction (WWII) and the imprint it left on policy for a long time.

If you believe the history (and I do), then the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good instruction on where civilian elected and appointed leadership beat back the pressure from military advisors to engage. Not easy to do. This is another reason to marvel the structure that places elected representative leadership in charge of the military. Not just the CIC, but Congress' role too.
Anyone can say what they like about politicians and the deep state, and they may be right, but the original architecture of the system was well conceived for good reasons.

All quite true!

[flyingpylon]

If what I've been reading here is correct, as long as it's all lies all the time, it's all good!

Is that a serious response to what I'd just written? If so, please quote me where I am saying that?

No, sorry. Just an off-the-cuff sarcastic comment when I should have already gone to bed. “Here” meant “this forum”. I get tired of all the government lies. You had just given more examples but went on to unequivocally support what we’re doing with Ukraine. I don’t think there’s enough clarity in that situation to justify the enormous amount of resources we’re plowing into it. I feel for the Ukrainian people, but I suspect it’s just another boondoggle and money laundering operation that will be prolonged unnecessarily by our government and politicians. But I also acknowledge that I’m not well informed on this topic and don’t have the time or interest to be right now so I’m mostly just listening to the discussion.

[yankees60]

If what I've been reading here is correct, as long as it's all lies all the time, it's all good!

Is that a serious response to what I'd just written? If so, please quote me where I am saying that?

No, sorry. Just an off-the-cuff sarcastic comment when I should have already gone to bed. “Here” meant “this forum”. I get tired of all the government lies. You had just given more examples but went on to unequivocally support what we’re doing with Ukraine. I don’t think there’s enough clarity in that situation to justify the enormous amount of resources we’re plowing into it. I feel for the Ukrainian people, but I suspect it’s just another boondoggle and money laundering operation that will be prolonged unnecessarily by our government and politicians. But I also acknowledge that I’m not well informed on this topic and don’t have the time or interest to be right now so I’m mostly just listening to the discussion.

It is known as using judgement and not making all simply black and white.

I was against the 2003 Iraq War from the start. I have not been persuaded that we are doing the wrong things regarding what we are doing with Ukraine.

In the most recent Washington Journal I just posted in another topic the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine makes the persuasive case for supporting all we are currently doing in Ukraine while also being critical of our present president.

Full text is provided with the video. Here is one key response:

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO PEOPLE'S VIEW THAT THIS IS A PROXY WAR BETWEEN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA?

THIS IS A RUSSIAN LINE DESIGNED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE IN THE WEST TO STOP SUPPORTING UKRAINE. AS I MENTIONED IN THE RESPONSE OF THE PREVIOUS COLLAR, THE GAME OF RUSSIA IS TO GO BEYOND UKRAINE AND COME AFTER OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING OUR ALLIES. I WOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THEY WANTED TO DESTROY UKRAINIANS, THEY WANT THEM TO BE RUSSIANS. IT IS ONLY A PROXY WAR IF YOU THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFEND ITS INTEREST IN UKRAINE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST AS A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE IS UKRAINIANS NOT RUSSIANS.

[Kbg]

Let’s run down the list objectively as to stated reason and reality. If you have the opinion the war was stupid, we stayed too long and we shouldn’t have gotten involved great. I share that view in some cases. However, this has no bearing on if the government lied to you about why we were getting involved.

First Gulf War - Iraq invaded Kuwait Fact

Bosnia-Kosovo - Prevent genocide of Bosnian Muslims Fact

Afghanistan - Response to 9/11 Fact

Second Gulf War - WMDs and links to terrorism intel failure on the first and lied to on the second

Continued anti-terrorist engagement in the Middle East - continued suppression of jihadist groups (primarily ISIS) Fact

Of note, all had supporting UN resolutions. 80% truth, 20% lied to/mislead.

Smart politicians in a democracy understand lying about the reasons for getting in a war is a long run losing proposition. The truth will come out and highly likely due to leaks from government employees who love their country and care about doing the right thing for the right reasons. Rock on “Deep Staters” who defy the President.

I’m guessing LBJ and GB 2 would have liked a do over…history won’t be and isn’t kind to what happened in Vietnam and Iraq 2.

No push back? Maybe your narratives don’t hold up to evidence.

[Kbg]

Our military industrial complex, defense contractor industry, and unfettered lobby will cause us to err to the side of militarism for the obvious reasons.

However, you should also realize politicians know how to count votes and they do on this issue. If you are in the group of Americans who think the military is too big...well 84% of Americans don't think the same as you do. In fact, the percent of Americans who think the military isn't strong enough is double or more (almost always) than your take.

It's not so much that that the military is too big. When the weighty decision to take military action occurs, it seems to me it is going to happen at a table where military advisors have a prominent advisory seat. Military advisors are going to recommend military action in the same uncanny way that surgeons have a habit of recommending surgery in the majority of patient consultations. It's not that it's for nefarious reasons. It's just what they do, call it the lens through which they view the world.
So I'm saying there is a decision bias in favor of military action for reasons to do with natural dynamics. Add to this the cost of inaction (WWII) and the imprint it left on policy for a long time.

If you believe the history (and I do), then the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good instruction on where civilian elected and appointed leadership beat back the pressure from military advisors to engage. Not easy to do. This is another reason to marvel at the structure that places elected representative leadership in charge of the military. Not just the CIC, but Congress' role too.
Anyone can say what they like about politicians and the deep state, and they may very well be right, but the original architecture of the system was well conceived for good reasons.

Of course the military is going to bring up military options. That’s their job. Your historical example is a great one. Uh no thanks General that’s not what we’re going to do. What you posted is the headline story…what you forgot was the US Navy gave Kennedy the option and non-violent solution to his problem. The naval blockade. The other major component was the diplomatic solution for us to remove nuclear missiles in Turkey if the Russians removed theirs from Cuba. Also, don’t forget the US never backed down on the policy decision that the missiles had to go.

From my experience here’s where there is a problem with the military. We stay WAY too long when things are obviously not going well and the cost benefit analysis of military action has swung to the absolute loss side of the ledger. A weird dynamic occurs…all militaries hate to lose. It’s the ultimate definition of failure. So they are going to suggest “more” ought to “work”. Politically, no one wants to decide to quit because they then get tagged as the loser President forever. So…the try some more military stuff just keeps on going…and going…and going. I thought Afghanistan was never going to end…and now Biden is tagged as the person that blew it. Forever wars are definitely a thing…but when a politician/the president says we’re done here the US military leaves.

I’ll not get on my soapbox of don’t politicize the military…which both parties are inclined to do these days.

[Kriegsspiel]

Defending "Russian's" within Ukraine were "Russian's" installed by Russia. Migration, force educators to only speak Russian and instate Russian states of minds, then rebel and seize.

As with so much (shit... almost all) violence in the modern era, borders and populations need to make sense or else you're likely to get violence. We see it in the middle east, central Asia, and Europe. A lack of scarcity and/or a dominant power to keep the peace can obviate the violence, for a time, but when conditions change (as I think they are now) then the violence comes back.

So going back to your statement, yea, that's one of the ways to do it. Most of the modern world is a result of this process. As Peter Zeihan says, it's only in the past several decades that we were able to freeze it. His concept, that I think seems to make sense, is that history was frozen because two actors became utterly dominant, the US and the USSR. The US acting as the world police, and in return exporting our inflation, was worth it when we were fighting to make sure the Soviets didn't rule the world. Once they were defeated, it makes less sense for all parties that the US polices the world, and everyone else uses the $.

My understanding of Zeihan's forecast is that as the US continues to draw down our military presence all over the world (which has been happening for a while), other spheres of influence will naturally emerge. This will turn down the volume on globalization, and human affairs will revert to the way they usually go.

[Kriegsspiel]

From my experience here’s where there is a problem with the military. We stay WAY too long when things are obviously not going well and the cost benefit analysis of military action has swung to the absolute loss side of the ledger. A weird dynamic occurs…all militaries hate to lose. It’s the ultimate definition of failure. So they are going to suggest “more” ought to “work”. Politically, no one wants to decide to quit because they then get tagged as the loser President forever. So…the try some more military stuff just keeps on going…and going…and going. I thought Afghanistan was never going to end…and now Biden is tagged as the person that blew it. Forever wars are definitely a thing…but when a politician/the president says we’re done here the US military leaves.

I think I agree with you in spirit, but I disagree with how you say it. The politicians are the ones who kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq for too long, trying to "nation build" and all that bullshit. Yea, the generals play their part, but the buck stops with the politicians. You started by saying it's a "problem with the military" but ended saying it's the politicians.

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

[Kbg]

Speaking of data…this is pretty interesting.

https://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp

[yankees60]

From my experience here’s where there is a problem with the military. We stay WAY too long when things are obviously not going well and the cost benefit analysis of military action has swung to the absolute loss side of the ledger. A weird dynamic occurs…all militaries hate to lose. It’s the ultimate definition of failure. So they are going to suggest “more” ought to “work”. Politically, no one wants to decide to quit because they then get tagged as the loser President forever. So…the try some more military stuff just keeps on going…and going…and going. I thought Afghanistan was never going to end…and now Biden is tagged as the person that blew it. Forever wars are definitely a thing…but when a politician/the president says we’re done here the US military leaves.

I think I agree with you in spirit, but I disagree with how you say it. The politicians are the ones who kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq for too long, trying to "nation build" and all that bullshit. Yea, the generals play their part, but the buck stops with the politicians. You started by saying it's a "problem with the military" but ended saying it's the politicians.

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

Correct if my memory on this is incorrect but I thought that at one point Obama was determined to reduce our presence in Afghanistan but
once he met with the military he succumbed to their pleas to escalate instead.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ba ... fghanistan

For all of Obama’s efforts at rapprochement with much of the world, he—like George W. Bush—was a wartime president. With the situation in Iraq continuing to improve and the target date for ending U.S. combat operations there approaching, in February 2009 Obama increased the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to 68,000 troops. Throughout his presidential campaign he had argued that the focus of U.S. military efforts should be in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, and, with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the military requested that Obama deploy an additional 40,000 troops there. After carefully weighing the situation for three months, Obama choose to send an additional 30,000 troops, a decision that was criticized by many in his party.

[I Shrugged]

By the way....

How interesting that the crash coincides with GWB. Back then the media actually reported on the weapons of mass destruction not being found.

What are they reporting in 2022 to make anyone mistrust the government? Nothing that I can think of. Probably like most of us, I have trouble seeing the 10,000 foot view some times. But I think the trend is important, and the mistrust is going to continue on a downward path no matter who gets elected. It's hard to put this lack of trust genie back into the bottle. Once we lose trust in someone or something, it's hard to get it back.

Usually a war will turn it around. Maybe GWB overplayed his hand there.

[stuper1]

Kbg,

Here's my pushback, coming from someone who admittedly is a naive dummy regarding this stuff. You characterize it as 80/20 truth to lies. I'm sure I could spend hours and days researching and come up with plenty of sources that would suggest a different ratio maybe 40/60 or 30/70. When there's so much money at stake sloshing around in these wars the truth becomes very foggy.

One thing I notice in your list of conflicts is the common denominator, which is US involvement. Why is this? Are we just congenitally nicer, more humanitarian people than other countries? That seems almost racist to suggest that American people are more caring about other nations than anybody else. Or are there darker forces at play? Who was that funny lady on SNL who would say "oh I don't know . . . I don't suppose it could be . . . SATAN". That might be a factor, but what is one of the main methods that the horned guy uses: yes, the love of money. Greed. Which is a given. There's a lot of greed in the world, and I'm pretty sure it's behind the US involvement in so many wars. One thing that I really dislike in my personal life is meddlers, people who can't mind their own business. This is what the US is on the world stage. I personally find it very distasteful.

You've written elsewhere that Americans are very naive about personal security. As I've said, I have no doubt I am very naive about it. So I have a serious, non-gotcha question for you. What difference does it make to American security if NATO stops at the western edge of Ukraine rather than the eastern edge? How are we going to be safer by having NATO in Ukraine? Russia made it clear that NATO in Ukraine was a red line that they would not allow to be crossed without repercussions. How did it make us safer to keep threatening to cross that line? As far as I can see, it made things less safe, where we are now at the hair-trigger to nuclear war. Would we be materially less safe if NATO had just stopped at the western edge of Ukraine, which by the way is hundreds of miles farther east than what was verbally promised to Russia at the end of the Cold War.

When the bully pushes the smaller kid on the playground over and over, the smaller kid has a choice to make. He can back down and submit to the bully and become the bully's pigeon, or he can push back and stand up for himself. I see the US and NATO as the bully in this situation, continually pushing Russia into a corner, constantly trying to destabilize.

[I Shrugged]

From my experience here’s where there is a problem with the military. We stay WAY too long when things are obviously not going well and the cost benefit analysis of military action has swung to the absolute loss side of the ledger. A weird dynamic occurs…all militaries hate to lose. It’s the ultimate definition of failure. So they are going to suggest “more” ought to “work”. Politically, no one wants to decide to quit because they then get tagged as the loser President forever. So…the try some more military stuff just keeps on going…and going…and going. I thought Afghanistan was never going to end…and now Biden is tagged as the person that blew it. Forever wars are definitely a thing…but when a politician/the president says we’re done here the US military leaves.

I think I agree with you in spirit, but I disagree with how you say it. The politicians are the ones who kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq for too long, trying to "nation build" and all that bullshit. Yea, the generals play their part, but the buck stops with the politicians. You started by saying it's a "problem with the military" but ended saying it's the politicians.

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

I think nation building was to some extent just an excuse for staying in hopes of finally, somehow being able to declare "we won"!

They didn't want to be the face of the retreat, as the big guy finally was. (To his credit.)

[SilentMajority]

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

I think Blinken said the this week the Afghan pull-out enabled the funding for this current proxy war.

So there you have it. They got out of Afghanistan and immediately escalated the situation in Ukraine, pushing for NATO expansion and attacks on Russians in the East because they had freed up the resources necessary for a better war they wanted more (and have wanted for years that Trump was standing in the way of).

[SilentMajority]

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

I think Blinken said the this week the Afghan pull-out enabled the funding for this current proxy war.

So there you have it. They got out of Afghanistan and immediately escalated the situation in Ukraine, pushing for NATO expansion and attacks on Russians in the East because they had freed up the resources necessary for a better war they wanted more (and have wanted for years that Trump was standing in the way of).

Everyone who voted for Biden should have known the group backing him wanted new wars and they were going to give them to us and give it good and hard.

[I Shrugged]

Speaking of data…this is pretty interesting.

https://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp

My immediate reaction to that is, there are some very bad people in all of those. But we ignore most of them. Others, the ones that involve Russia or Iran or their allies, we are all over them. That is why I don't like to hear "think of the poor (whomevers), are we supposed to just stand by while they get hurt?" Because that is just bullshit to whip us up to support the policy objectives.

[stuper1]

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

I think Blinken said the this week the Afghan pull-out enabled the funding for this current proxy war.

So there you have it. They got out of Afghanistan and immediately escalated the situation in Ukraine, pushing for NATO expansion and attacks on Russians in the East because they had freed up the resources necessary for a better war they wanted more (and have wanted for years that Trump was standing in the way of).

Everyone who voted for Biden should have known the group backing him wanted new wars and they were going to give them to us and give it good and hard.

You can check my posting history from around November 2020, when Dumb and Dumber got elected, and see that I made exactly that prediction. Trump for all his faults and mean tweets didn't seem too interested in getting us into more wars. Gee, I wonder, is there any correlation between that fact and the unbelievable animosity shown to him by the US media, FBI, CIA, etc.?

[glennds]

From my experience here’s where there is a problem with the military. We stay WAY too long when things are obviously not going well and the cost benefit analysis of military action has swung to the absolute loss side of the ledger. A weird dynamic occurs…all militaries hate to lose. It’s the ultimate definition of failure. So they are going to suggest “more” ought to “work”. Politically, no one wants to decide to quit because they then get tagged as the loser President forever. So…the try some more military stuff just keeps on going…and going…and going. I thought Afghanistan was never going to end…and now Biden is tagged as the person that blew it. Forever wars are definitely a thing…but when a politician/the president says we’re done here the US military leaves.

What you're describing is a dynamic of bravado and I can see where they're coming from, it's not that weird.
I used to work in hospital administration and many doctors have the same dynamic, which is why 80% of health care cost is incurred in the last two weeks of life, especially in an ICU. Thankfully it's getting better as palliative care is more and more adopted and the the legal system in some states is loosening up on malpractice dis-incentives that perpetuate forever care. But many doctors are trained to be heroic and think in terms of technical strategies that will manage symptoms but not serve a larger picture.
I think there are a parallels in war. It's the same reason why litigators will mostly advise their clients to litigate, and the more protracted the case gets, the harder it is to settle (and thus not win).

I don't believe in being critical of situations where the right answers would have eluded me as much as anyone. Everything is clear to everyone in hindsight. My original point was that it remains important for the client to tell his litigator no, for the patient to consider to what end the doctor's recommendation is serving, and why the CIC and cabinet need to realize the biases that may be baked into military advice. Personally I don't like seeing a Secretary of Defense, Nat'l Security Advisor or Secretary of State coming from the military.

BTW - way off topic here, but I will never stop PSAs for people to think about advanced healthcare directives early, and with a clear head. Designating a family member or friend to be your MPOA is not enough. 90% of the time family just cannot bring themselves to make a decision that approximates a death sentence so they become paralyzed, and the result is an excruciating end of life in an ICU while the docs follow conventional standard of care which means bombarding the patient with every intervention available. Specific wishes should be documented and MPOA needs to have enough backbone to enforce them.

[glennds]

Second, I don't blame Biden for finally getting us out of Afghanistan. I was totally on board when Trump got it in motion. But Biden will catch blame from me for withdrawing in such a retarded way, and (directly related) evacuating a largely indiscriminate shitload of "Afghan allies" and spreading them across the world.

I think Blinken said the this week the Afghan pull-out enabled the funding for this current proxy war.

So there you have it. They got out of Afghanistan and immediately escalated the situation in Ukraine, pushing for NATO expansion and attacks on Russians in the East because they had freed up the resources necessary for a better war they wanted more (and have wanted for years that Trump was standing in the way of).

Everyone who voted for Biden should have known the group backing him wanted new wars and they were going to give them to us and give it good and hard.

Who do you believe initiated the Ukraine war?

[Dieter]

One opinion on what might have happened if NATO hadn’t helped Ukraine

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rt/672547/

[DogBreath]

One opinion on what might have happened if NATO hadn’t helped Ukraine

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rt/672547/

Yes, and the Atlantic is a credible, non-biased publication.

[glennds]

One opinion on what might have happened if NATO hadn’t helped Ukraine

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rt/672547/

Yes, and the Atlantic is a credible, non-biased publication.

That might be, sarcasm noted. But the article author Anne Applebaum is a well regarded historian in addition to being a journalist. She's dedicated a good chunk of her professional career to the history of Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Communism and specifically Poland. Her husband is Poland's former Defense Minister. She won the Pulitzer for non-fiction for her book on the history of the Soviet Gulag system.

Not to say she couldn't be wrong, but her credentials are better than yours or mine Pug, so maybe worth consideration?