User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-15 at 4:25 PM UTCHe should have gone to Iran to avoid extradition. He would have been much freer there, not couped up in an apartment/jail with computer & cat.
-
2019-04-15 at 4:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Yeah and soldiers dying or getting injured will definitely stop the military.
yes. when the tools are broken the work stops.
also dying soldiers have a secondary, psycholocical effect, on themselves, on their families and ultimately ... on the leaders of the country they serve.
to end the combat, all combaten must be incapacitated or destroyed. -
2019-04-15 at 4:28 PM UTC
-
2019-04-15 at 7:36 PM UTC
-
2019-04-15 at 9:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny yes. when the tools are broken the work stops.
also dying soldiers have a secondary, psycholocical effect, on themselves, on their families and ultimately … on the leaders of the country they serve.
to end the combat, all combaten must be incapacitated or destroyed.
War is about as humane and mellow as it has ever been in human history. The brutality of war deters jack shit. Read about the Battle of Liege for example. -
2019-04-15 at 9:58 PM UTC
-
2019-04-16 at 7:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Would you be Ok with the US treating all whistleblowers and wikileaks as enemy spies?
I don't really understand the point of this question. Like no, obviously I think whistle blowers shouldn't have to flee the country and face the absolute farce of an extradition process pending life imprisonment Assange has enjoyed. I don't think holding this position conflicts with anything else I've said. -
2019-04-16 at 11:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Eval/Apply I don't really understand the point of this question. Like no, obviously I think whistle blowers shouldn't have to flee the country and face the absolute farce of an extradition process pending life imprisonment Assange has enjoyed. I don't think holding this position conflicts with anything else I've said.
And where should governments draw the line between a spy and a whistleblower when they're actively exposing military personnel to harm? -
2019-04-16 at 12:21 PM UTCIt's perfectly OK to spy, unless the spying involves exposing the heinous crimes against humanity of the various governments, that is.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-16 at 12:24 PM UTCShut up retard
-
2019-04-16 at 12:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Not what happened at all actually.
wut
extremely high casualties and equipment losses (specifically aircraft thanks to the PANV's Soviet AA complexes) led to political and economic backlash, making it impossible for the military to justify the campaign to the publicThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-16 at 12:35 PM UTCcasualties becoming so great that they're impossible to hide is one of the only things that stops a war of aggression; the battles are being fought far from home so the only things the attacker can really lose are its stomach or its ability to devote resources to the war effort.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-16 at 12:38 PM UTC
-
2019-04-16 at 12:47 PM UTC
-
2019-04-16 at 12:52 PM UTCTo explain further: the Tet offensive was a dumpster fire and pretty much obliterated the VC. The American public essentially believed the war was won, and it was safe to pull out by preparing SV's own troops due to Nixon's platform. The political pressure was more due to US brutalities in Vietnam than US losses. Nobody gave a fuck about the troops being killed and maimed lmao.
-
2019-04-16 at 1:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator To explain further: the Tet offensive was a dumpster fire and pretty much obliterated the VC.
The VC are the bogeyman, but it was the PANV that did the most damage*.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The American public essentially believed the war was won, and it was safe to pull out by preparing SV's own troops due to Nixon's platform.
Nixon never really believed that SV could effectively fight against NV; he intentionally sabotaged the existing peace process because he thought it threatened his chances at election, and I feel that his 'change of heart' was more a result of public/internal pressure than any (re-)analysis of the situation.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The political pressure was more due to US brutalities in Vietnam than US losses. Nobody gave a fuck about the troops being killed and maimed lmao.
lol, maybe, I have no idea how to quantify that though.
*I was looking for a casualty/kill breakdown and found this DOD figure:
"30–35% of American deaths in the war were non-combat or friendly fire deaths" -
2019-04-16 at 1:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra The VC are the bogeyman, but it was the PANV that did the most damage*.
Nixon never really believed that SV could effectively fight against NV; he intentionally sabotaged the existing peace process because he thought it threatened his chances at election, and I feel that his 'change of heart' was more a result of public/internal pressure than any (re-)analysis of the situation.
lol, maybe, I have no idea how to quantify that though.
*I was looking for a casualty/kill breakdown and found this DOD figure:
"30–35% of American deaths in the war were non-combat or friendly fire deaths"
I know, I'm telling you the narrative that was spun. Nixon fully leveraged pulling out of Vietnam politically. The American public was lead to believe that past the Tet offensive, the war was practically won. -
2019-04-16 at 1:37 PM UTCNobody gave a shit about the troops, as reflected by their treatment at home.
-
2019-04-16 at 5:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Nixon never really believed that SV could effectively fight against NV; he intentionally sabotaged the existing peace process because he thought it threatened his chances at election, and I feel that his 'change of heart' was more a result of public/internal pressure than any (re-)analysis of the situation.
i believe this has been repeated recently, -
2019-04-16 at 7:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator And where should governments draw the line between a spy and a whistleblower when they're actively exposing military personnel to harm?
Well to be honest I'm not all that concerned with the distinction between spies and whistleblower here. Disclosure to the public as opposed to a specific state seems like a distinction which makes the whistleblower more noble but the spy and the whistelblower alike work against american hegemony.
Frankly I imagine spies have an easier time of it. Like sure, the MIC will go after them but how much effort is put into extraditing spies once they've left the region they were operating in and delivered their intel? Capturing Assange and putting his head on a pike has no military significance, it's about sending a message to other would be whistleblowers.
