Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
So let me get this straight .....McGregor is a neo fascist shit-weasel.
On the "underclass" and slavery
In a 2013 radio appearance, Macgregor spoke of an "entitled" "underclass" of people that were concentrated in "large urban areas", and the threat they posed.
In 2019, he argued for the myth that there were more White, mostly Irish "slaves" than African slaves in America in the late 1700s.[34]
On the Kosovo War
In 2014, Macgregor went on Russian state-owned RT to express his opposition to U.S. intervention in the Kosovo War.[26] He described the results of US intervention in Kosovo as to "put, essentially, a Muslim drug mafia in charge of that country".[3]
On NATO
In a 2016 presentation to military students, Macgregor said that "old alliances like NATO may vanish", arguing that it is "time to reexamine U.S. investment in 'allies' that are doing too little to secure their own sovereign interests" and that the "Cold War ended 27 years ago".[41]
On immigration
In 2020, CNN reviewed his public commentary and
In 2019, on the Conservative Commandos radio show, Macgregor said that George Soros was financing the transportation of foreigners to the United States to destroy American culture:
He made similar claims about Soros on Lou Dobbs' Fox show in December 2019.[22] He has described Muslim migrants in Europe as "unwanted invaders", arriving "with the goal of eventually turning Europe into an Islamic state".[34] In April 2021 on Frank Morano's radio show, Macgregor blamed the Democratic Party for immigration:
These views were described by MSNBC, Media Matters for America, The Insider and Newsweek as a version of Great Replacement Theory.[43][44][45][46]
Douglas Macgregor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
..... are you presenting a forceful argument that Mash Brains Magoo has all the bona fides to be DJT's next NSA, Sec. of Def., Chairman of JCS and Sec. of State?
Like minded idiot savants and stable geniuses that would melt the most powerful AI powered MRI mind reading algorithms?
Sure. But they left without accomplishing any objectives. That's a loss.
That was my point. Vietnam was a test of a new American theory: limited warfare. A hybrid maneuver/attrition strategy. It failed, they lost, but they learned from it. Even against a conventional army it fails. That was played out in wargames. As an operational art, it's an unmitigated disaster.
You are incorrect. You might be immune to his mom because of what he says ... Charisma is the Bread and butter Of con men.
They were never defeated on the battlefield.
What the war hawks really wanted to do was nuke Hanoi. If the US wanted, it could have totally destroyed NVN the way a 240 lb steroid psycho gym rat asshole beats a 100 lb 12 year old kid to death over a stolen candy bar.
I know. They really haven't lost any wars - mainly because they were always a lot bigger than their opponents. Custer was the best I could come up with.
Depends what the objective is. In Kuwait the objective was to eject Iraq and restore the local government. Easy. In Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, not so easy. All losses according to objectives(though you can argue Korea).
Its still not clear it was sunk, but there is this.
Russia posted these photos but some are saying its not the same ship.
Its still unclear.
ROTFLMFAO!!!! If Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, America/NATO will do EXACTLY nothing.
You're really losing it, jc.
Is it the concussion?
Under what circumstances, pray tell, would NATO "retaliate " in kind, if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?????
Not really a counter-point as "never get defeated on the battlefield" is not a measure of seizing objectives, and also wrong. Battle of FSB Ripcord, Battle of LZ Albany, Operation Lam Son 719, etc. The US was defeated on the battlefield. They won every MAJOR engagement, sure. But they were definitely defeated on the battlefield a few times. But again, if those engagements don't achieve your objectives, you fail.
It's like the "lost cause" argument in the civil war: the claim that the South had a super military based on the early victories. You have to achieve your objectives to win and the South was defeated, so the lost cause argument is pointless.
By that same token, did the US remove the VC? No. Did they prevent the unification of Vietnam under a socialist state? No. Did they capture and hold the key strongholds? No. There is no metric by which Vietnam was not a defeat other than "the US killed more of them". But if that's your argument, are you saying Nazi Germany won against the Soviet Union? A Pyrrhic victory is still a victory.
I'm not going to get into a debate about what certain people may or may not have wanted as it's irrelevant to the topic. The fact is that the US lost Vietnam and I'm not sure why Canadians are arguing so hard to protect fragile American egos. Even for Americans, the important thing is to learn from your losses which they absolutely did and is the main reason why they haven't lost, even in similar asymmetric warfare, since.
- Status
