LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Vietnam has probably the world’s best recent military record, having defeated France, the US, China, and the Khmer Rouge, between 1954 to 1990.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
It was a terrible dilemma. Communism WAS expanding, it was evil, the domino theory was quite credible. Malaysia and Indonesia were also menaced by Marxism. People forget
So it had to be confronted. But brutalizing Vietnam with six trillion tons of bombs and sending in 500,000 troops was never going to work in the medium term
I can see why Washington made that choice, however. At the time
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
Not enough of the South Vietnamese wanted to be defended, so there was no way to do so. Same reason why Afghanistan turned into a failure, but helping Ukraine to defend itself is meeting with more success.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Yes, Giap said, startlingly for un-nationalist folk like me, "Eventually we will all die anyway, so it is more important to be our own masters than to live to be old". Perhaps Brexiteers will feel a faint twinge of sympathy across the ideologies and the years. I was active in the pro-NLF movement, of course, and was relieved when I visited the place many years later and found it wasn't the dour autocracy that I feared it might have become - in fact HCMC was notably free-wheeling, though I gather Hanoi is still on the dour side.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Have you read Ellsberg’s ‘Secrets’ ? I’ve read a lot of books about Vietnam, but that’s absolutely revelatory about Washington’s decision making. I don’t think anyone before or since has combined that kind of access with the willingness to write openly and honestly about it.
I haven’t. I shall add it to the list
Wasn’t it you who recommended ‘Kill Everything That Moves’ to me? If so, thank you. Shocking and sobering, and essential reading
Yes, it was. One if the surprising things to me, though many fine books (A Bright Shining Lie; The Best and the Brightest, for example) were written about it over decades, is just how long it took for the full reality of the conflict - both military and political - to get a real airing. Half the US, even those against the war, still believe the propaganda version.
One of the more successful US anti-colonial actions came right after the Civil War: 'After Gen. Lee's surrender, and that of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston in North Carolina, the only significant Confederate field force remaining was in Texas under Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith. Sheridan was supposed to lead troops in the Grand Review of the Armies in Washington, D.C., but Grant appointed him commander of the Military District of the Southwest on May 17, 1865,[6] six days before the parade, with orders to defeat Smith without delay and restore Texas and Louisiana to Union control. However, Smith surrendered before Sheridan reached New Orleans.[citation needed]
Grant was also concerned about the situation in neighboring Mexico, where 40,000 French soldiers propped up the puppet regime of Austrian Archduke Maximilian. He gave Sheridan permission to gather a large Texas occupation force. Sheridan assembled 50,000 men in three corps, quickly occupied Texas coastal cities, spread inland, and began to patrol the Mexico–United States border. The Army's presence, U.S. political pressure, and the growing resistance of Benito Juárez induced the French to abandon their claims against Mexico. Napoleon III announced a staged withdrawal of French troops to be completed in November 1867. In light of growing opposition at home and concern with the rise of German military prowess, Napoleon III stepped up the French withdrawal, which was completed by March 12, 1867.[38] By June 19 of that year, Mexico's republican army had captured, tried, and executed Maximilian. Sheridan later admitted in his memoirs that he had supplied arms and ammunition to Juárez's forces: "... which we left at convenient places on our side of the river to fall into their hands".' source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan#Reconstruction
As I recall, Sheridan left 30,000 rifles, and ammunition for them, for the Juarez forces to pick up from those "convenient places".
Judging by his actions, even Napoleon III respected those 50,00 well-armed Union veterans.
Anti-colonial, or just not wanting a rival in Uncle Sam’s backyard?
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Vietnam has probably the world’s best recent military record, having defeated France, the US, China, and the Khmer Rouge, between 1954 to 1990.
Have you been?
If you go, you see why. They are proud, feisty, energetic, often austere - and ambitious. With a long national history and a quite distinct culture
Very different from Cambodia or Thailand - in different ways. The Cambodians are dreamier, the Thais more hedonistic
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
The national liberation in Korea was from half a century of Japanese humiliation. Korea was a genuine civil war (which commenced some time before the official war), even if great powers participated.
The actual invasion from the North could in no way be described as a war of national liberation.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
It was a terrible dilemma. Communism WAS expanding, it was evil, the domino theory was quite credible. Malaysia and Indonesia were also menaced by Marxism. People forget
So it had to be confronted. But brutalizing Vietnam with six trillion tons of bombs and sending in 500,000 troops was never going to work in the medium term
I can see why Washington made that choice, however. At the time
And the British successfully put down the Communists in Malaya and defended Sarawak from Indonesia. There are plenty of examples of Western, and Western-backed, powers defeating insurgncies.
kle4 - One of the more perplexing colonial remnants is Puerto Rico, which has both an independence movement, and a statehood movement. Both have signficant support; neither has a clear majority, though recent referendums have tended to favor statehood.
(My view: If Puerto Ricans decide they want a change, we should agree to it, either way, and give them billions in aid to make the transition, easier.
My prediction: They will choose to become a state within the next 20 years. And it is more likely to happen if a popular, and smart, Republican is president.)
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Yes, Giap said, startlingly for un-nationalist folk like me, "Eventually we will all die anyway, so it is more important to be our own masters than to live to be old". Perhaps Brexiteers will feel a faint twinge of sympathy across the ideologies and the years. I was active in the pro-NLF movement, of course, and was relieved when I visited the place many years later and found it wasn't the dour autocracy that I feared it might have become - in fact HCMC was notably free-wheeling, though I gather Hanoi is still on the dour side.
Hanoi is generally fantastic. It can sometimes feel autocratic and a little grim - but that’s partly just weather. It gets cold and rainy, it’s not tropical Saigon. But it is full of history and culture, the people are spirited and fun (but don’t get in an argument), and the food is simply majestic. Arguably the greatest cuisine in the world
kle4 - One of the more perplexing colonial remnants is Puerto Rico, which has both an independence movement, and a statehood movement. Both have signficant support; neither has a clear majority, though recent referendums have tended to favor statehood.
(My view: If Puerto Ricans decide they want a change, we should agree to it, either way, and give them billions in aid to make the transition, easier.
My prediction: They will choose to become a state within the next 20 years. And it is more likely to happen if a popular, and smart, Republican is president.)
Becoming a U.S. State seems like a No Brainer. Demanding full integration, as per France, seems the best policy for any remaining colonies.
The Ukrainian army started to use ancient KS-19 100mm anti-aircraft guns. Though initially designed to be used against air targets, now they will be used against ground targets- in indirect and possibly direct mode.
One big difference between Vietnam and Thailand is the speaking of English. You’ll find good English speakers everywhere in Vietnam. Thailand, despite being much more developed, is significantly worse
The Vietnamese have an excellent and rigorous education system. Thailand does not. If I was a billionaire looking to invest in an emerging market, I might well choose Vietnam
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
The national liberation in Korea was from half a century of Japanese humiliation. Korea was a genuine civil war (which commenced some time before the official war), even if great powers participated.
The actual invasion from the North could in no way be described as a war of national liberation.
I guess that’s it. If the population at large view the insurgency/invasion as a war of national liberation, it will succeed, unless the occupiers resort to genocide, like Mongols or Romans.
If they see it as a fight between communists and anti-communists, as per Korea or Malaya, the communists will most likely lose, with great power backing.
And if they see it as a takeover by another country, like Sarawak or Ukraine, they will likewise welcome great power intervention.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
It was an unwinnable war, very much unlike Korea.
Quite so. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last man, and women, in a fetid tunnel near Dalat, to gain their freedom. They’d had a century of hated and racist occupation by France (who they eventually humiliated in battle), before that a long detested history of interference by China. They were prepared to fight to the death to be independent
You cannot win a war in that scenario, unless you’re prepared to do something Roman or Mongol - ie kill everyone in the country. America was never gonna do that, even tho they could have done, with nukes
Yes, Giap said, startlingly for un-nationalist folk like me, "Eventually we will all die anyway, so it is more important to be our own masters than to live to be old". Perhaps Brexiteers will feel a faint twinge of sympathy across the ideologies and the years. I was active in the pro-NLF movement, of course, and was relieved when I visited the place many years later and found it wasn't the dour autocracy that I feared it might have become - in fact HCMC was notably free-wheeling, though I gather Hanoi is still on the dour side.
Hanoi is generally fantastic. It can sometimes feel autocratic and a little grim - but that’s partly just weather. It gets cold and rainy, it’s not tropical Saigon. But it is full of history and culture, the people are spirited and fun (but don’t get in an argument), and the food is simply majestic. Arguably the greatest cuisine in the world
I travelled to Hanoi on business a number of times in the early 90's, just as it started to open up. The Hanoi Hilton was still a grim thing, but the city was opening up, even if initially it did feel like a sleepy provincial Chinese town. Still reminders of war - huge bomb craters littered the place, restaurants would have green parachute silk awnings, motorbike riders would have USAF helmets. Each time you went, you would see more vehicles - firstly mopeds, then trucks, then cars. White goods started to appear, then were ubiqitous outside rows of shops. (Each street had a different speciality - so if you wanted silk, you went to Hang Gai.)
The hotels were pretty basic. There was a hotel on the lake, built by the Cubans It was ok, but lots of wildlife that would eat your soap overnight. If you looked out the window you would see squadrons of mosquitoes, witing for the unwary. However, the place to try and avoid was a hotel out near the airport. Owned by the military, it had very few bookings. So the military would choose people as they got off flights to be placed under "house arrest" there, from 10pm until 6am. nd chrge you 200 US a night for the privelege.
I was always fortunate in avoiding it, but a female lawyer got sent there. She need to go to the loo in the middle of the night, turned on the light - and the entire floor looked up at her, before scuttling off. Eventually they started building hotels, but they were impossibly busy, especially the Metropole, run by the French. Princess Anne was told there was no vacancy when she travelled to Hanoi.
LBJ achieved a lot in six years. He changed the country for the better at a tricky time.
Had he not become embroiled in Vietnam, he might have been remembered as one if the most effective presidents in history.
Kennedy wanted out from Vietnam, against the advice of the majority of his White House team. Johnson inherited much the same team, and made the mistake of thinking he could strong-arm foreign leaders in the same way he could, with ease, manage domestic rivals.
Had South Vietnam been successfully defended, like South Korea, no one would now argue that US intervention was wrong.
I’ve just been to Vietnam where I read some more books about the war. I’ve now read 15 or 20. I reckon I’m quite expert
The war was unwinnable, because it was a war for independence and the Vietnamese are tough, resourceful, resilient people, and they’d had enough of occupiers
The USA had as much chance of winning that was as Putin has of ‘winning’ in Ukraine. The best you can hope for is a short period of conquest - followed by inevitable insurrection and, ultimately, long painful costly retreat
Putin, had the West turned its back on Ukraine, would have responded to insurrection with mass executions, and with deporting much of the population.
I don’t disagree, the Vietnam War was unwinnable, but Korea could easily have been unwinnable. Singman Rhee was a shit, actually much nastier than any South Vietnamese leader, and Kim Il Sung at least claimed to be leading a war of national liberation
The national liberation in Korea was from half a century of Japanese humiliation. Korea was a genuine civil war (which commenced some time before the official war), even if great powers participated.
The actual invasion from the North could in no way be described as a war of national liberation.
I guess that’s it. If the population at large view the insurgency/invasion as a war of national liberation, it will succeed, unless the occupiers resort to genocide, like Mongols or Romans.
If they see it as a fight between communists and anti-communists, as per Korea or Malaya, the communists will most likely lose, with great power backing.
And if they see it as a takeover by another country, like Sarawak or Ukraine, they will likewise welcome great power intervention.
Nationalism, therefore, trumps everything else.
The starkest difference between Korea and Vietnam from their points of view is that in the former case the US was pretty unequivocally their liberator from the brutal Japanese occupation of many decades (which is even today resented).
The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were actually surprised (and of course outraged) that the US sided with their brutal* colonial occupiers, the French, providing major financial aid for their efforts. Something Eisenhower need not have done (and in contrast with his policy towards British colonialism).
*They made some of our colonial efforts look relatively benign in comparison.
Not sure we’ve ever had a true global hegemon, in the sense of a power with control over the entire world
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
[insert comment about AI here]
I would say America had it, but only for a brief time. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 was an American Golden Age and, arguably, no polity in all of human history could have been said to wield such an influence. America in the 90s had no peers. In 1991, they sent soldiers into Kuwait and those soldiers could eat Pizza Hut.
To be fair, even with an ascending China, I wouldn't count out Uncle Sam. Biden is doing well, and the Americans have a rich vein of failed hegemons to learn from. If the USA can get over that fact that 20% of the population is batshit, and a further 20% of the population is willing to go along with the batshitness, then they could have another American Century. America is still rich, and that richness allows for a degree of mobility in facing the challenges of the future. The capacity for reinvention is large.
One big difference between Vietnam and Thailand is the speaking of English. You’ll find good English speakers everywhere in Vietnam. Thailand, despite being much more developed, is significantly worse
The Vietnamese have an excellent and rigorous education system. Thailand does not. If I was a billionaire looking to invest in an emerging market, I might well choose Vietnam
Interesting. Never been to Vietnam, and Thailand just once in February 2014 when tents were blocking up the streets of Bangkok.
Not sure we’ve ever had a true global hegemon, in the sense of a power with control over the entire world
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
[insert comment about AI here]
I would say America had it, but only for a brief time. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 was an American Golden Age and, arguably, no polity in all of human history could have been said to wield such an influence. America in the 90s had no peers. In 1991, they sent soldiers into Kuwait and those soldiers could eat Pizza Hut.
To be fair, even with an ascending China, I wouldn't count out Uncle Sam. Biden is doing well, and the Americans have a rich vein of failed hegemons to learn from. If the USA can get over that fact that 20% of the population is batshit, and a further 20% of the population is willing to go along with the batshitness, then they could have another American Century. America is still rich, and that richness allows for a degree of mobility in facing the challenges of the future. The capacity for reinvention is large.
Disagree. America has far too many chronic and internal problems, it will never return to that post WW2 period of near-total supremacy
From crime to Woke, from race to diet, from decaying cities to dreadful politics. It’s not pretty
But it is still seriously powerful, and it won’t tumble like Britain did. America is simply too big. A continent by itself (rather like China)
The future will be multipolar? America will be one empire amongst several
India is probably the rising power to watch. Growth there is now explosive. 9% last year. And this in an economy with 1.4bn people and all of them eager to be middle class
Not sure we’ve ever had a true global hegemon, in the sense of a power with control over the entire world
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
[insert comment about AI here]
I would say America had it, but only for a brief time. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 was an American Golden Age and, arguably, no polity in all of human history could have been said to wield such an influence. America in the 90s had no peers. In 1991, they sent soldiers into Kuwait and those soldiers could eat Pizza Hut.
To be fair, even with an ascending China, I wouldn't count out Uncle Sam. Biden is doing well, and the Americans have a rich vein of failed hegemons to learn from. If the USA can get over that fact that 20% of the population is batshit, and a further 20% of the population is willing to go along with the batshitness, then they could have another American Century. America is still rich, and that richness allows for a degree of mobility in facing the challenges of the future. The capacity for reinvention is large.
Disagree. America has far too many chronic and internal problems, it will never return to that post WW2 period of near-total supremacy
From crime to Woke, from race to diet, from decaying cities to dreadful politics. It’s not pretty
But it is still seriously powerful, and it won’t tumble like Britain did. America is simply too big. A continent by itself (rather like China)
The future will be multipolar? America will be one empire amongst several
India is probably the rising power to watch. Growth there is now explosive. 9% last year. And this in an economy with 1.4bn people and all of them eager to be middle class
Perhaps you're right, and you very well might be. America is riven with problems. One strand of history sees her overcome them. Another sees her consumed.
I think the one thing America has is the endless capacity for making new Americans. For taking in the new, incorporating it and continuing onwards. It's difficult to see India or China having that capacity for renewal. Maybe it won't matter in the end, but I personally think it's an admirable quality (even if the legend doesn't always match the reality).
The question is, perhaps uncomfortable for Europhiles like myself, where is Europe in this multipolar world?
Everyones best guess is that the Dems think by prosecuting Trump in NYC in 2023 it'll ensure he'll become the GOP candidate in 2024 and Biden will beat him in the Creepy Donald Vs Sleepy Joe 2024 V2 general election 24.
But what happens if Biden dies between now and Nov 24? Given he is very, very, very old and very obviously senile it could happen right?
In which case it could finish up Donald Vs Kamala by default, yes? But then what the hell would happen???
This could very easily backfire on the Dems and as it's Wrestlemania weekend... In the words of Jake "The Snake" Roberts from one of his greatest WWF promos in the 80s... Oh what a wicked you weave if at first you labour to deceive...🕸🕸🕸
Not sure we’ve ever had a true global hegemon, in the sense of a power with control over the entire world
The Romans had no control over early imperial China (which was Rome’s equal in size and wealth, to boot)
Imperial Britain faced too many potent rivals. We were THE superpower, but not a hegemonic power
The USA first faced the USSR (which could have wiped out America with nukes, albeit by assuring self destruction); it now faces ascending China which also has nukes and is in some economic senses already stronger (more manufacturing, bigger share of world trade)
[insert comment about AI here]
I would say America had it, but only for a brief time. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 was an American Golden Age and, arguably, no polity in all of human history could have been said to wield such an influence. America in the 90s had no peers. In 1991, they sent soldiers into Kuwait and those soldiers could eat Pizza Hut.
To be fair, even with an ascending China, I wouldn't count out Uncle Sam. Biden is doing well, and the Americans have a rich vein of failed hegemons to learn from. If the USA can get over that fact that 20% of the population is batshit, and a further 20% of the population is willing to go along with the batshitness, then they could have another American Century. America is still rich, and that richness allows for a degree of mobility in facing the challenges of the future. The capacity for reinvention is large.
The 1990s was such a golden age for the United States that it eventually led to complacency. For instance AFAIK they didn't think it was necessary to subject domestic flights to the same security measures as international flights, like most other western countries did. 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened if they had. (Their policy on domestic flights didn't make sense, because obviously an aircraft is potentially just as dangerous regardless of whether it's a domestic or international flight).
Only 2 groups are still largely loyal to the Conservatives. Rural Right with whom the Conservatives are on 55% and English Traditionalists with whom the Conservatives are on 50%. Albeit some Tory leakage to RefUK with these groups.
The Traditionalist Left, disillusioned suburbanites and centrist Liberals who backed the Conservatives in 2019 now back Starmer Labour.
The Activist Left who were the only group to back Corbyn in 2019 are now 75% Labour
Interesting, and credit to HYUFD for pointing it out. The heavily Tory response in today's canvass that I mentioned on the last thread was precisely in the "Rural Right" category, and with two exceptions every single one was clearly over 50.
Those of us that live in genuinely rural areas are always nervous of Labour. I am a moderate and very much wanted to see the back of Johnson, and had Johnson still been PM I would have held my nose and voted Labour if necessary. If Labour is to have a chance in very rural areas it has a lot of work to do. But then again, Labour is essentially an urban party and I guess it doesn't care. Which is why we do not trust them.
The key word is trust. I think there are some groups amongst the floaters who may trust SKS but don't trust Labour. SKS' problem is (1) Sunak comes across as fairly decent to many of those people and (2) I suspect many RW voters in particular see Labour as dominated by graduate urban types who essentially despise what RW voters are about.
Yes, as a Blue Wall constituency chair I'm familiar with something like that view, though it's not in my experience so much lack of trust as lack of salience - voting Labour just isn't something that many rural voters think of as a natural option. A problem is that "rural" doesn't mean agricultural. Labour is doing rather well with farmers at the moment, because the current Defra team aren't seen as effective - Starmer went down very well at the NFU conference. But do we have much to offer a retired couple living in a hard-earned large house in Surrey? I'd like to think that they'd be up for voting Labour simply on the basis of wanting a decent society around them, but only a minority feel that way.
That's a very good point re the Surrey couple and you would have to say "not much". It is not so much though that Labour doesn't have much to offer more that Labour - to many - represent a threat to what they have. That's the issue.
Precisely. Some of them will have a cultural aversion to Labour but the major problem is with two things Labour ought to be doing in power which these voters will despise: taxing them a whole lot more, and forcing them to put up with new build houses.
There's no point in Starmer trying to win over the wealthy pensioner vote. He should display a little of the Tories' ruthlessness and govern in the interest of his own voter coalition - public sector workers, young people, low wage earners, and all those struggling families without inherited wealth to rescue them from a whole life sentence of astronomical rents - and present all the bills to additional rate taxpayers and the owners of valuable assets. It's past time to put an end to easy street for homeowners aged over 50 and the very rich, and the moral preaching of ceaseless toil and the icy cold blast of the free market for everyone else.
Quite so. People seem to forget that one of the points of our political system is that different parties appeal to different interest groups. If Labour suddenly became attractive to wealthy, retired, outright home-owners with conservative (small c) values, people like me would be wondering what the point of Labour was. It's not in the interests of such people to vote Labour, as it's likely they'll pay more taxes for the common good. Farm labourers, on the other hand....
If the only appeal Labour has to you is to hate the tribes you don’t like…
Hmm - “wealthy, retired, outright home-owners with conservative (small c) values” - fill the pot holes, improve the hospitals, make the rivers nicer, a criminal justice system that actually deals with crime.. I can think of plenty of ways to appeal to such folk from the Social Democrat end of things.
And whom do you tax to pay for all the nice things?
Many years ago, a relative, a rich American who lived next to Wentworth golf course in a ridiculous house, ditched his tax lawyers, when the top rate of tax (plus NI) went to below 50%. He did so, because "I like schools, hospitals and roads, so any less than half and I'll just pay it".
One thing that grates with such people is the proud declarations of spending money. Not proud declarations of say, reducing waiting lists in the NHS, or proud declarations building a new town hall...
In their world, people who blag about spending money, as opposed to doing things, are usually wasting it.
Biden boasting about the tens of billions of dollars of aid sent to Ukraine, springs to mind there. The vast majority of it is old kit valued at a high number on a spreadsheet, not anything the current government is spending but allowing opposition to take hold, both from right and left, on the basis that the money is better spent at home.
Everyones best guess is that the Dems think by prosecuting Trump in NYC in 2023 it'll ensure he'll become the GOP candidate in 2024 and Biden will beat him in the Creepy Donald Vs Sleepy Joe 2024 V2 general election 24.
But what happens if Biden dies between now and Nov 24? Given he is very, very, very old and very obviously senile it could happen right?
In which case it could finish up Donald Vs Kamala by default, yes? But then what the hell would happen???
This could very easily backfire on the Dems and as it's Wrestlemania weekend... In the words of Jake "The Snake" Roberts from one of his greatest WWF promos in the 80s... Oh what a wicked you weave if at first you labour to deceive...🕸🕸🕸
Sorry, whose best guess is that? I really don't think there's that much deep political strategery behind these prosecutions.
The Manhattan DA is prosecuting because Trump seems to have committed crimes and probably because he thinks it's good for his personal political stature to prosecute them.
The document cover-up case is happening because they had to make the case just to get the documents back, and the crimes were then very flagrant and obvious and there's no way anyone would not get prosecuted for them once the investigation had got to that point.
The January 6th investigations are happening because the crimes are very serious. If the Biden thought the likely result was to his own serious electoral disadvantage then it's possible he'd have leaned on the AG not to bring them or made sure he appointed an AG who'd squish them, but it's very hard to predict the electoral consequences, especially since the administration has no control of the Manhattan case.
https://mobile.twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1642235083720409089 Hunter Biden would have to serve on the Burisma board for at least 5,000 years to earn the money Middle East governments have given to Kushner’s firm since Trump took office. Kushner of course had an official White House position, and worked on ME policy.
Whereas the young Biden is just an embarrassing relative.
One difference between worry about AI and worry about other kinds of technologies (e.g. nuclear power, vaccines) is that people who understand it well worry more, on average, than people who don't. That difference is worth paying attention to. https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1642110597545295872
Comments
So it had to be confronted. But brutalizing Vietnam with six trillion tons of bombs and sending in 500,000 troops was never going to work in the medium term
I can see why Washington made that choice, however. At the time
One if the surprising things to me, though many fine books (A Bright Shining Lie; The Best and the Brightest, for example) were written about it over decades, is just how long it took for the full reality of the conflict - both military and political - to get a real airing.
Half the US, even those against the war, still believe the propaganda version.
If you go, you see why. They are proud, feisty, energetic, often austere - and ambitious. With a long national history and a quite distinct culture
Very different from Cambodia or Thailand - in different ways. The Cambodians are dreamier, the Thais more hedonistic
Korea was a genuine civil war (which commenced some time before the official war), even if great powers participated.
The actual invasion from the North could in no way be described as a war of national liberation.
(My view: If Puerto Ricans decide they want a change, we should agree to it, either way, and give them billions in aid to make the transition, easier.
My prediction: They will choose to become a state within the next 20 years. And it is more likely to happen if a popular, and smart, Republican is president.)
The first KS-19 guns entered service in 1947.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1642262755662000129
At least the ammunition they’re using is more modern - it’s from the early 60s.
Both, of course.
Which was also true of the Monroe Doctrine. (Conveniently enforced by the British Navy for many years.)
The Vietnamese have an excellent and rigorous education system. Thailand does not. If I was a billionaire looking to invest in an emerging market, I might well choose Vietnam
If they see it as a fight between communists and anti-communists, as per Korea or Malaya, the communists will most likely lose, with great power backing.
And if they see it as a takeover by another country, like Sarawak or Ukraine, they will likewise welcome great power intervention.
Nationalism, therefore, trumps everything else.
The hotels were pretty basic. There was a hotel on the lake, built by the Cubans It was ok, but lots of wildlife that would eat your soap overnight. If you looked out the window you would see squadrons of mosquitoes, witing for the unwary. However, the place to try and avoid was a hotel out near the airport. Owned by the military, it had very few bookings. So the military would choose people as they got off flights to be placed under "house arrest" there, from 10pm until 6am. nd chrge you 200 US a night for the privelege.
I was always fortunate in avoiding it, but a female lawyer got sent there. She need to go to the loo in the middle of the night, turned on the light - and the entire floor looked up at her, before scuttling off. Eventually they started building hotels, but they were impossibly busy, especially the Metropole, run by the French. Princess Anne was told there was no vacancy when she travelled to Hanoi.
The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were actually surprised (and of course outraged) that the US sided with their brutal* colonial occupiers, the French, providing major financial aid for their efforts.
Something Eisenhower need not have done (and in contrast with his policy towards British colonialism).
*They made some of our colonial efforts look relatively benign in comparison.
To be fair, even with an ascending China, I wouldn't count out Uncle Sam. Biden is doing well, and the Americans have a rich vein of failed hegemons to learn from. If the USA can get over that fact that 20% of the population is batshit, and a further 20% of the population is willing to go along with the batshitness, then they could have another American Century. America is still rich, and that richness allows for a degree of mobility in facing the challenges of the future. The capacity for reinvention is large.
Support for a Section 35 challenge is vanishing.
These were the numbers just five weeks ago. On a like-for-like comparison including DKs:
Abandon the bill: up from 32% to 44%
Amend the bill: down from 30% to 24%
Go to court: down from 22% to 18%
DKs: down from 16% to 14%
https://twitter.com/wingsscotland/status/1642309716175994882
From crime to Woke, from race to diet, from decaying cities to dreadful politics. It’s not pretty
But it is still seriously powerful, and it won’t tumble like Britain did. America is simply too big. A continent by itself (rather like China)
The future will be multipolar? America will be one empire amongst several
India is probably the rising power to watch. Growth there is now explosive. 9% last year. And this in an economy with 1.4bn people and all of them eager to be middle class
Is everything as it seems?
"Trump and Stormy Daniels cash in on merchandise after indictment"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65143479
I think the one thing America has is the endless capacity for making new Americans. For taking in the new, incorporating it and continuing onwards. It's difficult to see India or China having that capacity for renewal. Maybe it won't matter in the end, but I personally think it's an admirable quality (even if the legend doesn't always match the reality).
The question is, perhaps uncomfortable for Europhiles like myself, where is Europe in this multipolar world?
Everyones best guess is that the Dems think by prosecuting Trump in NYC in 2023 it'll ensure he'll become the GOP candidate in 2024 and Biden will beat him in the Creepy Donald Vs Sleepy Joe 2024 V2 general election 24.
But what happens if Biden dies between now and Nov 24? Given he is very, very, very old and very obviously senile it could happen right?
In which case it could finish up Donald Vs Kamala by default, yes? But then what the hell would happen???
This could very easily backfire on the Dems and as it's Wrestlemania weekend... In the words of Jake "The Snake" Roberts from one of his greatest WWF promos in the 80s... Oh what a wicked you weave if at first you labour to deceive...🕸🕸🕸
The Manhattan DA is prosecuting because Trump seems to have committed crimes and probably because he thinks it's good for his personal political stature to prosecute them.
The document cover-up case is happening because they had to make the case just to get the documents back, and the crimes were then very flagrant and obvious and there's no way anyone would not get prosecuted for them once the investigation had got to that point.
The January 6th investigations are happening because the crimes are very serious. If the Biden thought the likely result was to his own serious electoral disadvantage then it's possible he'd have leaned on the AG not to bring them or made sure he appointed an AG who'd squish them, but it's very hard to predict the electoral consequences, especially since the administration has no control of the Manhattan case.
Hunter Biden would have to serve on the Burisma board for at least 5,000 years to earn the money Middle East governments have given to Kushner’s firm since Trump took office. Kushner of course had an official White House position, and worked on ME policy.
Whereas the young Biden is just an embarrassing relative.
Made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.
We'll never stop working to create a world where you won't have to be brave just to be yourself.
https://mobile.twitter.com/POTUS/status/1641798763390943232
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1642110597545295872