Modern era Democratic presidents

[Spartacus]

On 10/3/2021 at 2:24 PM, Arm of Harm said:

 

One could argue that there are two types of war: "normal" war and guerrilla war. A guerrilla war is obviously going to be messier and more difficult to win than a normal war, because guerrilla warriors do their best to blend in to the civilian population. Difficult to target guerrilla warriors without also killing civilians.

 

The laws of war are intended to lessen the bloodshed, by making a reasonable effort to separate legitimate military targets from civilian targets. It is illegal, for example, to use non-uniformed soldiers in combat. Why? Because those would be guerrilla warriors, and would blend in with the civilian population. The laws of war require soldiers to be kept separate from civilians, so that the enemy can target one without targeting the other. Likewise, naval bombardment of an enemy city is permitted if the following are true: 1) The city must be a defended city, meaning that there must be an enemy military presence in it. 2) The attacker must have an army near the city or soon to arrive near the city. 3) The attacker must make a good faith effort to hit legitimate military targets only. Some collateral damage is expected, but that cannot be the objective of the naval bombardment.

 

Germany's track record was that of fighting "normal" wars, not guerrilla wars. Its soldiers fought in a "normal war" fashion in the Franco-Prussian War, in WWI, and again in WWII. Its air force consisted mostly of single engine aircraft, such as fighters and dive bombers. Fighters are intended to shoot down enemy aircraft; dive bombers are intended to take out enemy tanks or artillery or other military targets. Germany also had medium bombers: two engine aircraft with longer range than fighters or dive bombers. These were useful for going behind enemy lines and taking out bridges and trains. These aircraft were unsuitable for strategic bombing. For that, you needed four engine heavy bombers. These had a longer range, and could carry much larger payloads, than could medium bombers. The U.S. and Britain went into WWII with such heavy bombers; Germany did not. When British bombers began bombing German cities, Hitler retaliated by using his medium bombers to bomb British cities. The death toll Germany imposed on British civilians was only a small fraction of the death toll British and American raids imposed on German cities.

 

During WWII, a good proxy of overall military production was the number of military aircraft produced. In the critical year of 1942, Germany produced 16,000 military aircraft, as compared to 25,000 for the Soviet Union, 24,000 for Britain, and 48,000 for the U.S. Germany's prewar population was less than half that of the Soviet Union, and not much more than half that of the United States. It lost WWII due to lack of production, too small a population size, and lack of oil. These led to "normal war" type defeats, such as the Battle of Stalingrad and the Normandy Invasion. Bombing raids targeted against civilian populations, primarily women and children, did not terrify Germany into surrendering. It fought until the bitter end.

 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. He served in the Red Army during WWII. He was a Christian and an anti-communist. He described the Soviet occupation of Germany in the following words:

 

The little daughter’s on the mattress,
Dead. How many have been on it
A platoon, a company perhaps?
A girl’s been turned into a woman,
A woman turned into a corpse.

 

To avoid that fate, a number of German parents would first kill their children, then themselves. They thought it better to die with dignity, than to watch their wives, sisters, and prepubescent daughters raped to death, and men shot out of hand if they tried to intervene. There were more rapes committed during the Soviet occupation of Germany, than there had been during any other event in history.

 

Unspeakable, unforgivable cruelty towards Germany did not end war or the threat of war. Had Stalin lived a few more years, he would have launched WWIII. Germany, whose people we had murdered with hunger and fire, would have been our most important ally. This world war would have been unlike the previous two. Stalin had much stronger conventional forces than the U.S. and its allies. He had, or believed he had, the ability to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their nuclear payloads. Stalin wanted war against the United States, and had a sound plan to win that war. Neither of these things had been true of our opponents in the first two world wars.

those following  "laws" of war will lose those wars 

[Arm of Harm]

3 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

those following  "laws" of war will lose those wars 

When the Allies broke the laws of war the National Socialists typically followed suit. One example I’ve already given is that after the British began bombing civilian targets in Germany, the Germans began doing the same to the British (albeit less effectively). 
 

Another example is France. French communists broke the laws of war by engaging in guerrilla combat (soldiers out of uniform). As the Germans were unable to adequately retaliate against the communist guerrillas, they retaliated against the civilian population instead. Many French civilians were executed for each German soldier unlawfully killed. 
 

If one side ignores the laws of war, it’s likely the other side will ignore them as well. That will increase the death toll of the war as a whole. If you’re lucky enough to have an opponent which actually obeys the laws of war, the humane thing to do would be to obey them also. Maybe the war gets resolved with civilians receiving the protections they’re supposed to receive, and that international law requires. 

[Spartacus]

4 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said:

When the Allies broke the laws of war the National Socialists typically followed suit. One example I’ve already given is that after the British began bombing civilian targets in Germany, the Germans began doing the same to the British (albeit less effectively). 
 

Another example is France. French communists broke the laws of war by engaging in guerrilla combat (soldiers out of uniform). As the Germans were unable to adequately retaliate against the communist guerrillas, they retaliated against the civilian population instead. Many French civilians were executed for each German soldier unlawfully killed. 
 

If one side ignores the laws of war, it’s likely the other side will ignore them as well. That will increase the death toll of the war as a whole. If you’re lucky enough to have an opponent which actually obeys the laws of war, the humane thing to do would be to obey them also. Maybe the war gets resolved with civilians receiving the protections they’re supposed to receive, and that international law requires. 

most of these "wars" are financial boondoggles with no intention of ever having a "winner"

you would have fewer "wars", if the winner actually employed a scorched earth policy, as a deterrent to future nonsense

 

fight to win - or don't start the fight

 

[Keukasmallie]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:56 PM, Arm of Harm said:

When the Allies broke the laws of war the National Socialists typically followed suit. One example I’ve already given is that after the British began bombing civilian targets in Germany, the Germans began doing the same to the British (albeit less effectively). 
 

Another example is France. French communists broke the laws of war by engaging in guerrilla combat (soldiers out of uniform). As the Germans were unable to adequately retaliate against the communist guerrillas, they retaliated against the civilian population instead. Many French civilians were executed for each German soldier unlawfully killed. 
 

If one side ignores the laws of war, it’s likely the other side will ignore them as well. That will increase the death toll of the war as a whole. If you’re lucky enough to have an opponent which actually obeys the laws of war, the humane thing to do would be to obey them also. Maybe the war gets resolved with civilians receiving the protections they’re supposed to receive, and that international law requires. 

 

If we're thinking of applying this concept to the current political battles in the US, the first premise must be that the Democrats have already ignored the laws of war.  

 

Several Republican congresspersons are touting the idea that Republicans vote for moderate Democrats in 2022.  No deal, I could not stomach voting for the party that promoted and elected the former vice president and the former senator from CA.  Trump may not be my choice, but I'l vote for "his" party and hope the moderate Republicans win the current internecine battle within the party.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Keukasmallie
'cuz

[TtownBillsFan]

19 hours ago, Keukasmallie said:

 

If we're thinking of applying this concept to the current political battles in the US, the first premise must be that the Democrats have already ignored the laws of war.  

 

Several Republican congresspersons are touting the idea that Republicans vote for moderate Democrats in 2022.  No deal, I could not stomach voting for the party that promoted and elected the former vice president and the former senator from CA.  Trump may not be my choice, but I'l vote for "his" party and hope the moderate Republicans win the current internecine battle within the party.

WTF are you talking about, Keuk?  No Republican, anywhere, is saying to vote for any demonrat, anywhere.  It's JUST NOT HAPPENING, and NOT BEING SUGGESTED.  PLEASE be more specific, if you have an actual demonstration of that.  I can guarantee, you DO NOT.

[TtownBillsFan]

Ugh, brother.  You're all over the place often, but this one is more than most.  No, No Republican, anywhere, is suggesting anyone EVER vote for ANY democrat.  It just WILL NOT HAPPEN by anyone that's a Republican.  We do NOT go backwards.

 

Many Dems end up where I'm talking from (as they age, modify, grow-up, improve).  It NEVER goes the other way, if they have their faculties present.

[TtownBillsFan]

Or am I wrong?  Do people that are conservatives (republicans, conservatives, true-believers in small-government, personal responsibility, etc), ever go the other way?  I don't want to say it never happens, but I've not known anyone to do so.  But, I like to think ours is the end-goal in thinking, so I don't want to think I'm incapable of improved thinking...

 

Are there those that were staunch-conservatives that went the other way?  I can, easily, likely name 1000 that went lib to conservative (normally the very second it hit their back-pocket).  But how many go from Conservative (true C-Conservative) to Liberal (or even small-l-liberal)?

 

[Keukasmallie]

51 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Ugh, brother.  You're all over the place often, but this one is more than most.  No, No Republican, anywhere, is suggesting anyone EVER vote for ANY democrat.  It just WILL NOT HAPPEN by anyone that's a Republican.  We do NOT go backwards.

 

Many Dems end up where I'm talking from (as they age, modify, grow-up, improve).  It NEVER goes the other way, if they have their faculties present.

 

I'm looking for the reference I was noting.  Will post ASAP.

[Keukasmallie]

Found it:  https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-officials-are-urging-republican-voters-back-democrats-in-2022-2021-10

[TtownBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, Keukasmallie said:

Found it:  https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-officials-are-urging-republican-voters-back-democrats-in-2022-2021-10

Thanks, Keuk, reading it now, and will let you know what I think. 🙂

[TtownBillsFan]

LOL, Keuk, are you kooky?  I DID say that, proper, true conservatives, yada yada yada.  Did YOU read the link you posted?  If so, do you see where I might have a problem with you claiming that as your demonstration of proper conservatives?

 

Hey, everyone's entitle to their opinion.  I just don't want us to re-define what it means to be conservative.  I don't think we need to do so, and those people, most certainly, do NOT! 😛

 

[TtownBillsFan]

Keuk, I'll define Conservatism anytime.  It's immutable.  Doesn't change for me.  Let me know when you want me to define that.

[Keukasmallie]

Ttown, I'm all set with my definition of conservatism as well as my specific, very conservative, brand of same.  So thanks, but no thanks on your offer.

 

Also, recall that I said Republican officials, not conservatives; they're not necessarily the same animal.

[Ann]

2 hours ago, Keukasmallie said:

Also, recall that I said Republican officials, not conservatives; they're not necessarily the same animal.

Same animal? Some aren't even the same species.

[Arm of Harm]

Barack Obama

• Failure to secure the southern border or prevent illegal immigration.

• IRS scandal, in which the IRS targeted conservative groups for audit and for removing tax-exempt status.

• Coverup of the above scandal.

• Illegal “Fast and Furious” operation, in which the Obama administration provided weapons to Mexican drug gangs, apparently in an effort to promote anti-gun legislation.

• Disinformation from the Obama Department of Justice about racially charged police shootings.

• Obamacare, which massively increased the cost of healthcare while illegally requiring people to purchase health insurance.

• Obamacare also encouraged or forced consolidation of healthcare providers, thereby reducing or eliminating both choice and consumer-driven accountability.

• As a Senator, Obama had described deficit spending as a failure in leadership and as stealing from our children and grandchildren. As president his massive increases in government spending caused the national debt to double in just eight years.

• Bad trade deals.

• Chose a very corrupt vice president.

• Gave large sums of money to Iran, including pallets of physical cash, while receiving nothing meaningful in return. Big media's uncritical acceptance of Obama's disinformation about this subject may have been a test run for the Russia hoax.

• Conducted an illegal investigation against Donald Trump's associates, using disinformation provided by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

• Used various intimidation tactics to punish criticism of his administration.

• Encouraged physical harassment of conservative leaders, by telling his followers to “create a crowd” when encountering conservatives in restaurants or other public places.

• Continued and amplified George W. Bush's policy of warrantless spying directed against the American people, after having promised to end such spying.

• Continued George W. Bush's policy of aggression and interventionism in the Middle East.

• Created a policy by which many underage violent criminals are not reported or punished for their crimes. At least one school shooting was performed by one of the people whose crimes were overlooked due to this policy.

• Failed to give the Ukraine sufficient weapons to defend itself against Russian aggression. Did little when Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed the eastern third. Trump would later provide vastly more military aid to the Ukraine than it had ever received from Obama. Russia did not conquer any Ukrainian territory during Trump's presidency.

 

Offsetting positives

• The CARD Act forced credit card companies to be more transparent and less predatory.

• While Obamacare was unconstitutional and made healthcare less efficient and more expensive, it also forced insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions.

• While his environmental efforts were typically associated with campaign contributions or corruption, the electric car recharging stations he put in place at the end of his presidency were more good than bad.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Arm of Harm

[Arm of Harm]

Joe Biden

• Became president through a stolen election.

• Eliminated Trump's border security measures. After Trump had achieved the lowest level of illegal immigration in 30 years, Biden's administration has witnessed the highest.

• Despite the massive deficits of both the Obama and Trump administrations, Biden fully supports a plan to spend additional trillions. No case has been made as to why this new spending is necessary.

• Changed Trump's immigration policy so that people can arrive and immediately go on government assistance.

• Favors a massive tax hike to pay for roughly half of his new spending. Large-scale increases in regulations on business. Turning 1099s into W2s. Plans to double the number of IRS agents. Re-imposition of the inheritance tax and elimination of step-up basis, so government can largely confiscate the inheritances of the middle class.

• Continued Obama's tradition of simply ignoring Supreme Court verdicts he does not like. Examples include the Court's verdict to reinstate Trump's “remain in Mexico” policy and its verdict pertaining to the eviction moratorium.

• Relocated people illegally immigrating into the country into various states. Illegal immigration is a criminal act, which the Biden administration is aiding and abetting.

• Ended nearly all investigations targeted against top Democrats.

• Used an executive order to impose an unconstitutional vaccine mandate.

• Radicalization of public education. Critical race theory. Biden's Department of Justice labels parents opposed to the radicalization potential domestic terrorists.

• Used an executive order to force unwilling doctors to perform gender-altering mutilation surgery on children. These children are too young to give legal consent for sex, let alone to give consent for sexual mutilation.

• Ignoring the advice of his military advisers, Biden chose to withdraw the American military from Afghanistan before evacuating the people or removing the military equipment. Lies and broken promises to allies. Lies to the American people.

• Both Russia and China are likely to benefit from reverse-engineering examples of the $80 billion in military and communications equipment Biden had left behind in Afghanistan.

• Russia's main exports are oil and natural gas. Biden eliminated the energy independence Trump had created. That increased the price of oil and helped Russia.

• Russia and Germany had agreed to the construction of a pipeline, so that Russia could supply Germany with the vast majority of its energy needs. As Germany's energy provider, Russia would have had considerable leverage. Trump successfully blocked this pipeline while president. Biden has allowed this pipeline to go forward.

   

Offsetting positives

• None.

 

[Koko]

1 hour ago, Arm of Harm said:

Offsetting positives

• None.

 

C'mon man, at least there are no mean tweets!