China is a sick place

[Ghost of BiB]

Damn, I miss the cold war and the comparatively straightforward strategy of engaging a bunch of godless bolshies who were happy to all be in one place at the same time.

 

So do we. I've had some good conversations with former "Soviet" counterparts. We agree that massing against each other was a lot more simple than what we are doing now. We knew where they were going and what they were going to do, ditto for them. Everybody was happy.

 

Back then, intell was about 10% of the equation, and forces about 90%. Now, we have a reverse. 21st Century warfare against ethereal terror organizations and a few rogue countries is about 90% Intell, and 10% forces. Also calls for a lot more cooperation within government than it used to, and that is never easy.

[Ghost of BiB]

I suspect that if there had been an attack by the Soviet Union all bets would have been off.  They would have taken a great deal of Central Europe, our containment plan (more of a political sop to Germany than anything even our military expected to hold) would have collapsed and we would have had an old fashioned reinvasion of Europe, or possibly would have been on the verge of going nuclear as the Soviets threatened Italy or France.  Negotiated peace with an expansion of Soviet interests in Europe.

530739[/snapback]

 

How long have you had your card to the Optimists Club?

[OGTEleven]

How long have you had your card to the Optimists Club?

530766[/snapback]

When you're a socialist, his viewpoint is optimistic.

[tennesseeboy]

nonsense...I suspect we would have played the nuclear card first and the Soviets would have negotiated to keep what they could. You don't really think the forces we had in Europe would have held the Fulda Gap against the entire Soviet military do you? They would have moved into Central Europe and I'm not aware of any significant force that would have stopped them. We had the nuclear card, and they had nuclear cards. I think they would have been more reluctant than we were to play them (that old Hiroshima Nagasaki thing.) and would have played that to our advantage. In any event...we never had to play that game. A pessimist would have speculated on the real unthinkable...that we BOTH would have played the nuclear card.

[Ghost of BiB]

nonsense...I suspect we would have played the nuclear card first and the Soviets would have negotiated to keep what they could.  You don't really think the forces we had in Europe would have held  the Fulda Gap against the entire Soviet military do you? They would have moved into Central Europe and I'm not aware of any significant force that would have stopped them.  We had the nuclear card, and they had nuclear cards.  I think they would have been more reluctant than we were to play them (that old Hiroshima Nagasaki thing.) and would have played that to our advantage.  In any event...we never had to play that game.  A pessimist would have speculated on the real unthinkable...that we BOTH would have played the nuclear card.

530812[/snapback]

 

I'm sorta kinda not going to go down that road...

[X. Benedict]

Damn, I miss the cold war and the comparatively straightforward strategy of engaging a bunch of godless bolshies who were happy to all be in one place at the same time.

530728[/snapback]

Blame Reagan, that bastard ended the cold war. As far as engaging a bunch of godless bolshies you can do that at prettywoman.com on LABILLS signature....some real hotties.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Take a look at the Chinese in Korea. They outnumbered us, what? 10 to 1?

530758[/snapback]

 

And devastated I and IX Corps, and kicked their asses back across the parallel before the front stabilized, and then couldn't make any headway because they were strictly a light infantry force with little weaponry heavier than mortars incapable of digging a well-balanced force out of a fortified position.

 

Which is COMPLETELY different from the NATO-Soviet face-off on the interior German border...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And devastated I and IX Corps, and kicked their asses back across the parallel before the front stabilized, and then couldn't make any headway because they were strictly a light infantry force with little weaponry heavier than mortars incapable of digging a well-balanced force out of a fortified position.

 

Which is COMPLETELY different from the NATO-Soviet face-off on the interior German border...

531105[/snapback]

 

I'd say, however, that by the 1970s and 80s our military had developed close anti-armor air support to a level not seen since the Stuka era.

 

It's exactly that air power that I believe would have led to eventual victory over the Soviets. Not to mention company-level tactical superiority and flexibility.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'd say, however, that by the 1970s and 80s our military had developed close anti-armor air support to a level not seen since the Stuka era.

 

It's exactly that air power that I believe would have led to eventual victory over the Soviets. Not to mention company-level tactical superiority and flexibility.

531127[/snapback]

 

Though I'd agree with you on CAS in the '80s (not so much the '70s - the USAF and Army air components were both forces in transition from '60s era technology), the history of air support is that it's not all its billed as. (And wasn't all it was billed as when the Stukas were doing it, anyway.)

 

I used to have these types of discussions a lot in college: "Air power will be all-powerful over the battlefield." "The ATGM will be all-powerful on the battlefield." "The attack helicopter will be all-powerful on the battlefield." "The MLRS will be all-powerful on the battlefield." It's all crap. Any new - "revolutionary" - technical advancement in the military sphere usually goes through three distinct phases: 1) a conservative "feeling through" period of limited use in support of traditional tactics, 2) a peroid where the zealous evangelists predict it will change warfare for good and make everything else obsolete, 3) final integration with other battlefield arms along traditional military theory. It's as true for air power as it was for tanks as it was for torpedos as it will be for the currently and faintly ridiculous vogue of "networked warfare" and "information warfare".

 

Air power itself stood as little chance to stop the Soviets as WWI-style trench warfare. Air power integrated with land forces and applied through the operational depth of the opponent...that's another story. It stood a good chance, at the very least, as the foundation of AirLand Battle was sound (as has now been demonstrated twice in Iraq) even if the AirLand Battle doctrine itself was flawed. But the key was that air power (i.e. CAS) alone would not be relied on to win battles, but would be one component of the integrated whole.

 

And it's also important to note that that fundamental basis of AirLand Battle - attacking the enemy simultaneously throughout his operational depth - was a fundamentally Russian theory. The Russians all but invented the concept in WWII (the Germans did, sort of - but their doctrone was more one of strategic encirclement). Whether they had the military leadership and discipline throughout their army to properly execute such an operational theory is one thing...but they did have theory every bit as advanced as Western military thought.

[Bill from NYC]

>>>>>However, residents told The Associated Press that as many as 20 people were killed when police opened fire on a crowd of thousands protesting against inadequate compensation offered by the government for land to be used for the new power plant.<<<<<

 

Yeah, well the leftists on the Supreme Court took away homes from people in CT. to open businesses, no?

Hey, I don't give a flying f#$k about China. Americans are losing rights in our own country every day.

I have a hard time sitting here judging the Chinese when Americans stand by and watch our own cherished freedoms slip away.

[X. Benedict]

>>>>>However, residents told The Associated Press that as many as 20 people were killed when police opened fire on a crowd of thousands protesting against inadequate compensation offered by the government for land to be used for the new power plant.<<<<<

 

Yeah, well the leftists on the Supreme Court took away homes from people in CT. to open businesses, no?

Hey, I don't give a flying f#$k about China. Americans are losing rights in our own country every day.

I have a hard time sitting here judging the Chinese when Americans stand by and watch our own cherished freedoms slip away.

531216[/snapback]

 

Curious that you call eminent domain laws used to open capital ventures leftist.

There has to be a better word.

[meazza]

Though I'd agree with you on CAS in the '80s (not so much the '70s - the USAF and Army air components were both forces in transition from '60s era technology), the history of air support is that it's not all its billed as.  (And wasn't all it was billed as when the Stukas were doing it, anyway.) 

 

I used to have these types of discussions a lot in college: "Air power will be all-powerful over the battlefield."  "The ATGM will be all-powerful on the battlefield."  "The attack helicopter will be all-powerful on the battlefield."  "The MLRS will be all-powerful on the battlefield."  It's all crap.  Any new - "revolutionary" - technical advancement in the military sphere usually goes through three distinct phases: 1) a conservative "feeling through" period of limited use in support of traditional tactics, 2) a peroid where the zealous evangelists predict it will change warfare for good and make everything else obsolete, 3) final integration with other battlefield arms along traditional military theory.  It's as true for air power as it was for tanks as it was for torpedos as it will be for the currently and faintly ridiculous vogue of "networked warfare" and "information warfare". 

 

Air power itself stood as little chance to stop the Soviets as WWI-style trench warfare.  Air power integrated with land forces and applied through the operational depth of the opponent...that's another story.  It stood a good chance, at the very least, as the foundation of AirLand Battle was sound (as has now been demonstrated twice in Iraq) even if the AirLand Battle doctrine itself was flawed.  But the key was that air power (i.e. CAS) alone would not be relied on to win battles, but would be one component of the integrated whole.

 

And it's also important to note that that fundamental basis of AirLand Battle - attacking the enemy simultaneously throughout his operational depth - was a fundamentally Russian theory.  The Russians all but invented the concept in WWII (the Germans did, sort of - but their doctrone was more one of strategic encirclement).  Whether they had the military leadership and discipline throughout their army to properly execute such an operational theory is one thing...but they did have theory every bit as advanced as Western military thought.

531180[/snapback]

 

my my someones been watching a lot of discovery channel lately

bravo !

[Bill from NYC]

Curious that you call eminent domain laws used to open capital ventures leftist.

There has to be a better word.

531261[/snapback]

 

Look up the vote on that particular case, find me a better word and will use it.

Do you like the term "phoney liberals?"

[X. Benedict]

Look up the vote on that particular case, find me a better word and  will use it.

Do you like the term "phoney liberals?"

531459[/snapback]

The vote hardly matters, it is the principle involved: to allow municipalities to co-opt private property to foster capital enterpise (not municiple enterprise)and to clear the way for big box stores such as Target and Walmart would not be particularly leftist in thinking, but strictly an admission that capital trumps the weak.

 

Who liked this decision: Wall Street, City Halls, Souter, League of Municipalities

 

Who disliked this decision: NAACP, Thomas, O'Conner, Cato Institute, Urban League

 

So what do you want to call the NAACP and the Urban League? Conservatives?

[Taro T]

The vote hardly matters, it is the principle involved: to allow municipalities to co-opt private property  to foster capital enterpise (not municiple enterprise)and  to clear the way for big box stores such as Target and Walmart would not be particularly leftist in thinking, but strictly an admission that capital trumps the weak.

 

Who liked this decision: Wall Street, City Halls, Souter, League of Municipalities

 

Who disliked this decision: NAACP, Thomas, O'Conner, Cato Institute, Urban League

 

So what do you want to call the NAACP and the Urban League?  Conservatives?

531494[/snapback]

That isn't an admission that capital trumps the weak, it's an admission that the GOVERNMENT trumps the weak. A good capitalist says that that decision is horrible because the government has significantly weakened property rights and stepped in where it had no legitimate grounds to be. When land gets eminent domained, especially in a case like this, it is very doubtful that the rightful owner gets full value for his property. The developer could have built his development, all he needed to do was pay the property owners what the property was worth or alter the plans and build around the properties in question.

 

This absolutely is leftist (socialist) thinking. The state (government) knows better how to use your property, or in this case who will use your property, than you do.

 

I don't know if Wall Street applauded the decision, but the WSJ sure did hate it, as well they should have.

 

I suppose Rehnquist and Scalia are also liberals? They joined Thomas and O'Connor in dissent.

[X. Benedict]

 

This absolutely is leftist (socialist) thinking.  The state (government) knows better how to use your property, or in this case who will use your property, than you do.

 

 

531512[/snapback]

My point was that there is no clear division on this decision.

The state is not taking the property for its own use, but co-opting it

and putting it into the domain of capital ventures. I certainly don't

agree with this decision, but is it leftist thinking to take property and

turn it over to corporations. What is classically leftist about that?

 

The heirarchy appears to be:

 

Corporation> State> Individual

 

What socialist worth his hammer and sickle would agree with that?

[Taro T]

My point was that there is no clear division on this decision.

The state is not taking the property for its own use, but co-opting it

and putting it into the domain of capital ventures. I certainly don't

agree with this decision, but is it leftist thinking to take property and

turn it over to corporations. What is classically leftist about that?

 

The heirarchy appears to be:

 

Corporation> State> Individual

 

What socialist worth his hammer and sickle would agree with that?

531520[/snapback]

It's not that the corporation takes precedence over the state. (The politicians don't really give a rat's butt who is getting the property, all they care about is tax $'s.) It's that the politicians "know" how better to use your property. In this case the "better" usage is the one that brings in much more tax money. Who knows what obscene justification the state will use the next time it thinks it knows better how to use someone's property than that person.

 

"Good socialists" tend to believe the "collective good" trumps individual rights. The increased tax revenue is the "collective good". This is why the left wing of the SC was fully behind this decision. Individuals having the ability to develop and make use of their own property without fear of confiscation by the government or others are the people that enabled our capitalist system to grow and prosper. This decision says essentially that eminent domain can be invoked any time a government wants to as long as the government had a "plan". What socialist worth his h&s wouldn't love that?

 

The fear of government confiscation of property (land, factories, whatever) and the lack of property rights are large factors limiting growth in the developing countries. A good capitalist does not want to see this country follow down that path.

[X. Benedict]

It's not that the corporation takes precedence over the state.  (The politicians don't really give a rat's butt who is getting the property, all they care about is tax $'s.)  It's that the politicians "know" how better to use your property.  In this case the "better" usage is the one that brings in much more tax money.  Who knows what obscene justification the state will use the next time it thinks it knows better how to use someone's property than that person.

 

"Good socialists" tend to believe the "collective good" trumps individual rights.  The increased tax revenue is the "collective good".  This is why the left wing of the SC was fully behind this decision.  Individuals having the ability to develop and make use of their own property without fear of confiscation by the government or others are the people that enabled our capitalist system to grow and prosper.  This decision says essentially that eminent domain can be invoked any time a government wants to as long as the government had a "plan".  What socialist worth his h&s wouldn't love that?

 

The fear of government confiscation of property (land, factories, whatever) and the lack of property rights are large factors limiting growth in the developing countries.  A good capitalist does not want to see this country follow down that path.

531542[/snapback]

 

It seems to me that your stance is libertarian, aside from wanting economic individualism, the ill-defined charge of "blight" in these cases seeks to return non-performing properties to the free market sector. Or as O'Connor said a "Robin hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the privelidged." I do see your point though but I still believe a good Marxist interpretation of this system would still say that the peasant is getting his ass kicked in this class system

 

Untimately, as for libertarian capitalism for groups such as the Cato institute, the danger in this case is not individual rights for the homesteader per se, but case law that could eventually be turned against private corporations. My bet is the Cato institute spends very little time in East Buffalo, although they did write an excellent brief.

[Taro T]

It seems to me that your stance is libertarian, aside from wanting economic individualism, the ill-defined charge of "blight" in these cases seeks to return non-performing properties to the free market sector. Or as O'Connor said a "Robin hood in reverse, stealing from the poor to give to the privelidged." I do see your point though but I still believe a good Marxist interpretation of this system would still say that the peasant is getting his ass kicked in this class system

 

Untimately, as for libertarian capitalism for groups such as the Cato institute, the danger in this case is not individual rights for the homesteader per se, but case law that could eventually be turned against private corporations. My bet is the Cato institute spends very little time in East Buffalo, although they did write an excellent brief.

531577[/snapback]

You are correct that the little guy is taking it up the keister on this one. I would expect though that a Marxist or socialist that believes in communalism would be willing to sacrifice his proletariat brethren in this instance in order to further the overall socialistic "good" of expanding the legal justification for eminent domain takings.

 

I did not read the Cato Institute's brief in this matter but would expect that, as a matter of principle, they would be opposed to the property confiscation of the homesteader or the corporation.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

my my someones been watching a lot of discovery channel lately

bravo !

531335[/snapback]

 

Shut up, dumbass. The adults are talking.