Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Labour has a much lower chance than 12% of winning a majority – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392

    HYUFD said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    It wasn't, it was just the US decided to withdraw in 1973. They kept North Vietnam out of South Vietnam for over a decade and had they stuck the course South Vietnam might be what South Korea is today
    Er, Tet offensive?
    Militarily the Tet was actually a horrible failure, the Viet Cong expected to do much better. They were roundly defeated everywhere

    However it succeeded in one significant arena: American public opinion. As it came out of the blue, and shocked the American TV-watching public, it fatally unnerved American voters - and led to Saigon in 1973
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.
    I think that is a rather odd suggestion. Rory Stewart, more than actual members of the Cabinet at the time, fought hard and openly for May's deal, repeatedly. Whatever his reasons for that, whatever his comments now, and whatever one thinks of that deal (you are not a fan) that is not the action of someone who was driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma. It showed a lot of pragmatism and indeed some boldness in actually defending that pragmatic view whilst others hid.
    Yes he was prepared to have May's BINO deal. But when other votes came before Parliament where we actually left, that was a different matter.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 16,083
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    A good point which hadn't occurred to me.

    I don't think it is right, because US gun owners may do the weaponry but I don't think they'll do the living in tunnels on half a bowl of rice a day, or know how to set up an effective punji stick. But still worth making.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    Aslan said:

    Leon said:

    Foss said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    At what point would we start shooting at the boats, or just ramming them so they turn around in despair? Scenes like this occurred off Greece recently, so it is not some entirely cruel and sadistic mind game

    There comes a point where this will happen. I’m trying to work out what the tipping point is.

    Clearly, it’s more than what we experience now - at worst, 500 a day make it over?

    But if it was 5,000 daily? Through the year? That’s an illegal immigration rate of 1.8 million a year. Utterly unsustainable and long before then we’d be shooting the boats and letting them drown, if we were unable to think of any other alternative

    The tipping point is around 1000-2000 a day, I suspect. Which is scarily close to where we are already

    1500 a day through the year is 550,000 annual illegal migrants, on top of normal immigration that would be way more immigration than the UK has ever experienced - and most of it entirely chaotic and unpoliced. We are near to something bad

    This is also palpably an election loser for the Tories, unless they get a fix

    592 made it over on Thursday:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-58213583

    If it becomes utterly politically intolerable and the Tories don't sort it out, then a new party will come on the scene that will say it will do whatever it takes and then the law will be what bends.
    Yes. And I don’t think well-meaning lefties understand how quickly this would get extremely visceral, and quasi Fascist. They just bleat and virtue-signal

    We Brexited, and menaced our entire economy, partly because of uncontrolled immigration. An actual sea-borne invasion?? Violence will follow

    The only solution I can see is the Australian tow-them-away-somewhere-safe-but-unpleasant
    I expect we'll be saved from your quasi fascist government by the Mediterranean nations getting there first. Greece already seems to be engaged in mass pushback.
    Perhaps. But the migration pressures are only going to grow, and an awful lot of these migrants want to come to the UK, because of migrants already here, and the English language, and the perception that we are a bit soft (and we are, eg no ID cards, free health care at point of need, etc)

    So there is an incentive for every EU country to just let them in, wave them through, let them go to northern France and Belgium, then make for the UK. Problem sorted - for the EU

    Big big problem for the UK
    Climate change will make it much worse.

    There's going to be huge population growth in Africa over the next 30-50 years. Much of it is already baked in, with very high births over the last 5 years. But what if much of sub-Saharan Africa become uninhabitable, just as Russia and Europe become more fertile?

    Trouble ahead. Big trouble.
    The US struggles to control flows from Mexico, but it has a simple approach for everyone from overseas: there is an asylum cap and they allow in X number each year and no more. There is no reason why the UK cannot do the same.
    The US has land borders with Mexico and Canada.

    What’s the next nearest land?

    (Not forgetting many refugees from Cuba reached the US in open boats, a distance of 91 miles if memory serves.)
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    Michael Corleone:
    I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.

    Hyman Roth:
    What does that tell you?

    Michael Corleone:
    It means they could win.
    Brilliant quote. Which Godfather movie? Or the book?

    I never knew “revenge is a dish that tastes best when served cold” is also from The Godfather. Or so google has just told me, as I drink absurdly strong G&T in the quiet backstreets of Kolonaki
    Godfather 2 when they’re in Havana I think
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392

    I regret Brexit and I would not change my vote to Remain (if I was asked to join the EU I would either abstain or vote to stay out) but I am quite willing to concede that wanting to stop/cancel Brexit was a mistake and we got that wrong. But unlike some others I am prepared to admit that, whereas they just pretend they haven't said things.

    May's deal was the only workable Brexit there ever was and that is becoming obviously clear as each day passes. And for that she has my respect - we should have voted it through.


    Good for you. Remoaners need to admit they made a terrible mistake. Not in opposing Brexit, that’s perfectly arguable, and we will be arguing it for decades. But trying to overturn a massive democratic vote? Without even enacting it?

    It was immoral and stupid, and also horribly dangerous. Thank God it failed, and British democracy survived
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850

    HYUFD said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    It wasn't, it was just the US decided to withdraw in 1973. They kept North Vietnam out of South Vietnam for over a decade and had they stuck the course South Vietnam might be what South Korea is today
    Er, Tet offensive?
    You mean the offensive launched by Hanoi into South Vietnam which was beaten back by the US and South Vietnamese, most notably at the Battle of Hue which was recaptured by the US and South Vietnamese in March 1968?

  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120
    Leon said:


    There are uncanny echoes with Vietnam, but also major disparities. The North Vietnamese were funded and aided by the USSR and China, big time. They had enormously powerful allies.

    The Taliban have no allies, except a few mad rich saudis maybe. Yet they have defeated America

    The loss of Afghanistan after a pointless 20 year war is not only costlier and sadder than the loss of Vietnam, it is more telling historically. It is the very end of the American century -1921-2021

    None of that matters.

    The truth is, as was the case in South Vietnam in 1975, the military and political leaders of the Government, no doubt with their financial, personal and political sanctuaries prepared, abandoned the soldiers and the people to their fate.

    Governments need a sense of legitimacy in order to survive - it doesn't matter how strong the apparatus of terror or social control there comes a point when the forces of the regime need to fight (and die) to protect that regime. As we've seen from East Germany to Egypt, once it becomes clear the forces supposedly keeping the Government in power are not prepared to exercise that power, the house of cards can fall very quickly.

    No one seems willing to fight for the Afghan State or Government - the Afghan Army isn't an ill-equipped rabble any more than the ARVN was in early 1975. On paper, the Afghan Army in 2021 and ARVN in 1975 had the means to hold the line but they didn't have the will.

    Any State survives purely on the will of those charged with defending it to carry out that task even if it means risking death. If they aren't prepared to discharge that task, the State will fall.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    A good point which hadn't occurred to me.

    I don't think it is right, because US gun owners may do the weaponry but I don't think they'll do the living in tunnels on half a bowl of rice a day, or know how to set up an effective punji stick. But still worth making.
    Do you know many small town/rural Republican gun owners? They make the Viet Cong look urbane and effete. Of course they would fight, with their guns, right down to the last tin of 30 year old survivalist beans

    In fact I think this is true of the Brits as well, or at least a surprising proportion of them. We’ll just have to make our own guns
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,541
    edited August 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.

    Actually that’s not true. He was never a Remoaner, or at least not the worst kind. I believe he accepted the result but wanted to soften it, and he never campaigned for a 2nd referendum, let alone Revoke

    I am happy to be proven wrong


    Edit: but this implies I am right


    ‘For those who want a second referendum, you risk replacing a sensible Brexit with a No Deal: 'What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens' - Disraeli’

    https://twitter.com/rorystewartuk/status/1069203194117537792?s=21
    He was willing to back May's backstop Brexit In Name Only, but once it came to voting through to actually exit with or without a deal he was one of the die hard few Tories who refused to do so even knowing it was a confidence vote.
    That is a ridiculous interpretation. 'Willing to back' rather underplays that he was one of the people arguing most strongly for it, not making some token acceptance of Brexit.

    And while you might well consider it to have been Brexit in name only, those actually 'driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma' as you put it most certainly did not see it as Brexit in name only, which is why they fought tooth and nail to reject it, to their own cost now.

    Even by your own terms someone willing to vote for Brexit in name only is a long long way from the MPs, including the hard core of remainer Tories, who refused to do even that.

    QED he was not a part of that extreme anti-Brexit group, since that group did not even accept a name only Brexit, and so to say he was driven mad is preposterous. You are making the classic mistake of lumping together everyone who opposed the Brexit you wanted as being exactly the same, as if there is no difference between someone who backed/opposed/delete as necessary a customs union, May's deal, a Boris deal or no deal.

    That's the type of thing extreme remainers do, I'm surprised you are doing the same.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    It wasn't, it was just the US decided to withdraw in 1973. They kept North Vietnam out of South Vietnam for over a decade and had they stuck the course South Vietnam might be what South Korea is today
    Er, Tet offensive?
    Militarily the Tet was actually a horrible failure, the Viet Cong expected to do much better. They were roundly defeated everywhere

    However it succeeded in one significant arena: American public opinion. As it came out of the blue, and shocked the American TV-watching public, it fatally unnerved American voters - and led to Saigon in 1973
    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorist Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win
  • Leon said:

    I regret Brexit and I would not change my vote to Remain (if I was asked to join the EU I would either abstain or vote to stay out) but I am quite willing to concede that wanting to stop/cancel Brexit was a mistake and we got that wrong. But unlike some others I am prepared to admit that, whereas they just pretend they haven't said things.

    May's deal was the only workable Brexit there ever was and that is becoming obviously clear as each day passes. And for that she has my respect - we should have voted it through.


    Good for you. Remoaners need to admit they made a terrible mistake. Not in opposing Brexit, that’s perfectly arguable, and we will be arguing it for decades. But trying to overturn a massive democratic vote? Without even enacting it?

    It was immoral and stupid, and also horribly dangerous. Thank God it failed, and British democracy survived
    Remoaners is incredibly immature though and I would say undermines your comment, as stupid as people that call Brexit Brexshit
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    I regret Brexit and I would not change my vote to Remain (if I was asked to join the EU I would either abstain or vote to stay out) but I am quite willing to concede that wanting to stop/cancel Brexit was a mistake and we got that wrong. But unlike some others I am prepared to admit that, whereas they just pretend they haven't said things.

    May's deal was the only workable Brexit there ever was and that is becoming obviously clear as each day passes. And for that she has my respect - we should have voted it through.

    The fact that MPs who wanted Remain to win the referendum had the nerve to vote Mays deal down was incredible. I couldn’t believe it was happening at the time, and it is just as shocking now.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.
    I think that is a rather odd suggestion. Rory Stewart, more than actual members of the Cabinet at the time, fought hard and openly for May's deal, repeatedly. Whatever his reasons for that, whatever his comments now, and whatever one thinks of that deal (you are not a fan) that is not the action of someone who was driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma. It showed a lot of pragmatism and indeed some boldness in actually defending that pragmatic view whilst others hid.
    Philip is as usual all over the place.

    Philip supported a deal which BoJo now says is rubbish, Stewart at least supported something that was going to be deliverable forever. BoJo's deal didn't even last a year.

    Stewart was literally the opposite of "driven mad", one of the few MPs actually trying to deliver a workable Brexit!
    CHB missing the poin as usual.

    Boris's deal was absolutely massively superior than May's and it lasted as long as it needed to last.

    The shorter the NI Protocol lasts the better, that's what you're failing to understand. That the backstop could have been delivered "forever" is a horrifyingly dreadful prospect, that is precisely why I opposed it. There was no way to end it.

    Boris dumped the atrocious backstop with no unilateral exit that we could have been trapped in forever, and instead replaced it with the NI Protocol we could self-destruct after months not an eternity.

    Since the backstop/protocol is a bad thing that the EU wanted, not what we wanted, it not lasting forever is a good thing.

    Your logic is as insane as suggesting a law graduate getting an initial job for minimum wage while they get experience and then seeking a better a job after 6 months that pays better is a failure because their initial job didn't last forever. The whole point is the initial job was not meant to last forever.

    Nothing is supposed to last forever.
    You and your mate BoJo campaigned on getting Brexit done. You came on here and said this deal would end the debate, I remember me and others saying you were mistaken.

    So you campaigned on something that you knew that wasn't true. So why when the deal was going through the HoC did you not say then that it would be temporary? You said this was the end, only when BoJo changed his mind did you also.

    When you don't have an actual ideology or set of beliefs, you don't have anything to anchor yourself to. Hence why you change your mind every day.

    If the Brexit policy was good at GE19 and was finishing Brexit as you claimed, you should do the honourable thing and stick by it. Yet you don't.
    Brexit is done.

    Post-Brexit politics isn't done. It will never be done. Politics is never "done".

    I couldn't care less about your supposed claims of "honour", that is not my view of honour.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.

    Actually that’s not true. He was never a Remoaner, or at least not the worst kind. I believe he accepted the result but wanted to soften it, and he never campaigned for a 2nd referendum, let alone Revoke

    I am happy to be proven wrong


    Edit: but this implies I am right


    ‘For those who want a second referendum, you risk replacing a sensible Brexit with a No Deal: 'What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens' - Disraeli’

    https://twitter.com/rorystewartuk/status/1069203194117537792?s=21
    He was willing to back May's backstop Brexit In Name Only, but once it came to voting through to actually exit with or without a deal he was one of the die hard few Tories who refused to do so even knowing it was a confidence vote.
    That is a ridiculous interpretation. 'Willing to back' rather underplays that he was one of the people arguing most strongly for it, not making some token acceptance of Brexit.

    And while you might well consider it to have been Brexit in name only, those actually 'driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma' as you put it most certainly did not see it as Brexit in name only, which is why they fought tooth and nail to reject it, to their own cost now.

    Even by your own terms someone willing to vote for Brexit in name only is a long long way from the MPs, including the hard core of remainer Tories, who refused to do even that.

    QED he was not a part of that extreme anti-Brexit group, since that group did not even accept a name only Brexit, and so to say he was driven mad is preposterous. You are making the classic mistake of lumping together everyone who opposed the Brexit you wanted as being exactly the same, as if there is no difference between someone who backed/opposed/delete as necessary a customs union, May's deal, a Boris deal or no deal.

    That's the type of thing extreme remainers do, I'm surprised you are doing the same.

    I can't wait for Philip to flip flop again when BoJo changes his mind again. That's the problem with the infiltration of the Tories by this lot, no principles.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,153
    I wish that all the Brexiteers who have been telling us to “move on and get over it, you lost” for 5 years had spent that time telling the Taliban the same thing since 15 November 2001. We might not be in this position.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    The whole refugee argument is about to change in any case. If climate scientists are correct and people keep telling me the science is settled then over the next few years there is going to be half to a full billion climate refugees. Most of them will be seeking to enter europe as they will come from asia, africa and the middle east. No western government will wish to allow that many in and it will become fortress europe they will be stopped at the border. Note not eu britain will be the same its the whole concept of armed lifeboats
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,541
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    An interesting point, though I think the argument on the latter is a bit more nuanced than that. The 'we can fight the US army with basic assault rifles' crowd are not a large number I'd have thought, and do not have masses of support among the general populace for an insurrection against the US army. I'd have thought that the scale of of the forces against the US in the examples you give, the level of support (even if not a majority) among the local population, would significantly affect whether they could meaningfully resist - those groups as they are now would not have a shot, surely?
  • The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,153
    All the Brexit greatest hits getting an airing tonight I see.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.

    Actually that’s not true. He was never a Remoaner, or at least not the worst kind. I believe he accepted the result but wanted to soften it, and he never campaigned for a 2nd referendum, let alone Revoke

    I am happy to be proven wrong


    Edit: but this implies I am right


    ‘For those who want a second referendum, you risk replacing a sensible Brexit with a No Deal: 'What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens' - Disraeli’

    https://twitter.com/rorystewartuk/status/1069203194117537792?s=21
    He was willing to back May's backstop Brexit In Name Only, but once it came to voting through to actually exit with or without a deal he was one of the die hard few Tories who refused to do so even knowing it was a confidence vote.
    That is a ridiculous interpretation. 'Willing to back' rather underplays that he was one of the people arguing most strongly for it, not making some token acceptance of Brexit.

    And while you might well consider it to have been Brexit in name only, those actually 'driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma' as you put it most certainly did not see it as Brexit in name only, which is why they fought tooth and nail to reject it, to their own cost now.

    Even by your own terms someone willing to vote for Brexit in name only is a long long way from the MPs, including the hard core of remainer Tories, who refused to do even that.

    QED he was not a part of that extreme anti-Brexit group, since that group did not even accept a name only Brexit, and so to say he was driven mad is preposterous. You are making the classic mistake of lumping together everyone who opposed the Brexit you wanted as being exactly the same, as if there is no difference between someone who backed/opposed/delete as necessary a customs union, May's deal, a Boris deal or no deal.

    That's the type of thing extreme remainers do, I'm surprised you are doing the same.

    May's deal absolutely was a token acceptance of Brexit.

    Yes he was prepared to accept that token, which was more than the likes of Soubry, but when it came to actually leaving in practice and not in name he was one of only 21 Tory MPs to vote against it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950.

    The US led UN forces responded with the aim of forcing the North Koreans out of South Korea.

    They did and they won the war
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392

    Leon said:

    I regret Brexit and I would not change my vote to Remain (if I was asked to join the EU I would either abstain or vote to stay out) but I am quite willing to concede that wanting to stop/cancel Brexit was a mistake and we got that wrong. But unlike some others I am prepared to admit that, whereas they just pretend they haven't said things.

    May's deal was the only workable Brexit there ever was and that is becoming obviously clear as each day passes. And for that she has my respect - we should have voted it through.


    Good for you. Remoaners need to admit they made a terrible mistake. Not in opposing Brexit, that’s perfectly arguable, and we will be arguing it for decades. But trying to overturn a massive democratic vote? Without even enacting it?

    It was immoral and stupid, and also horribly dangerous. Thank God it failed, and British democracy survived
    Remoaners is incredibly immature though and I would say undermines your comment, as stupid as people that call Brexit Brexshit

    It is the only word for extreme Remainers who were prepared to countenance a second referendum, or even Revoke. It describes an actual political type, which is very relevant even today. If you know a better word, please tell me
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,224

    The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Brexit is "done" in the same way there is peace in Afghanistan...
  • I believe Starmer will do better than many think and will achieve a similar voteshare at minimum, to Corbyn 2017
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited August 2021

    The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
  • The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
    Philip you literally supported a deal and then six months later said it was rubbish, it's not me that is being incomprehensible
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    An interesting point, though I think the argument on the latter is a bit more nuanced than that. The 'we can fight the US army with basic assault rifles' crowd are not a large number I'd have thought, and do not have masses of support among the general populace for an insurrection against the US army. I'd have thought that the scale of of the forces against the US in the examples you give, the level of support (even if not a majority) among the local population, would significantly affect whether they could meaningfully resist - those groups as they are now would not have a shot, surely?
    I would say the trump insurgency should make you wonder about masses of support among the general public. You also have to remember the first problem of any civil was is army defections and taking the hardware with them. I think if there was an armed insurrection in the us it would not be such a clear cut win as many think. Northern ireland is maybe the best analogue even at their height there weren't that many actual ira members
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
  • The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
    Philip you literally supported a deal and then six months later said it was rubbish, it's not me that is being incomprehensible

    That is a lie.
    I have never said the deal is rubbish.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120
    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    Well I will leave you to break the news as I refuse to engage with him anymore
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950.

    The US led UN forces responded with the aim of forcing the North Koreans out of South Korea.

    They did and they won the war
    The retreat from the Yalu River waves hello.
  • The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
    Philip you literally supported a deal and then six months later said it was rubbish, it's not me that is being incomprehensible

    That is a lie.
    I have never said the deal is rubbish.
    Okay you now support the NI elements and you don't want them to be replaced, you support the deal exactly as it was in 2019, thank you - so you disagree with BoJo
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,294
    OT. The Afghan women are much the best advocates for Afghanistan. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnon are an absolute embarrassment. The fact that those two are our leader and potential leader is a ghastly reality
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,541
    edited August 2021

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    Oh yes, so I'm now reminded by you and a quick look at his history.. I think it's most unfortunate that Boris hasn't managed to entice him back to the party, or even into that kind of job.
    That Gavin Williamson has a cabinet position, and Rory Stewart doesn’t, is indeed a source of quiet despair
    Stewart is very like certain members [and former members] of this site. Absolutely excellent in his own right, but was driven mad by anti Brexit dogma.

    Actually that’s not true. He was never a Remoaner, or at least not the worst kind. I believe he accepted the result but wanted to soften it, and he never campaigned for a 2nd referendum, let alone Revoke

    I am happy to be proven wrong


    Edit: but this implies I am right


    ‘For those who want a second referendum, you risk replacing a sensible Brexit with a No Deal: 'What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens' - Disraeli’

    https://twitter.com/rorystewartuk/status/1069203194117537792?s=21
    He was willing to back May's backstop Brexit In Name Only, but once it came to voting through to actually exit with or without a deal he was one of the die hard few Tories who refused to do so even knowing it was a confidence vote.
    That is a ridiculous interpretation. 'Willing to back' rather underplays that he was one of the people arguing most strongly for it, not making some token acceptance of Brexit.

    And while you might well consider it to have been Brexit in name only, those actually 'driven mad by anti-Brexit dogma' as you put it most certainly did not see it as Brexit in name only, which is why they fought tooth and nail to reject it, to their own cost now.

    Even by your own terms someone willing to vote for Brexit in name only is a long long way from the MPs, including the hard core of remainer Tories, who refused to do even that.

    QED he was not a part of that extreme anti-Brexit group, since that group did not even accept a name only Brexit, and so to say he was driven mad is preposterous. You are making the classic mistake of lumping together everyone who opposed the Brexit you wanted as being exactly the same, as if there is no difference between someone who backed/opposed/delete as necessary a customs union, May's deal, a Boris deal or no deal.

    That's the type of thing extreme remainers do, I'm surprised you are doing the same.

    May's deal absolutely was a token acceptance of Brexit.

    Yes he was prepared to accept that token, which was more than the likes of Soubry, but when it came to actually leaving in practice and not in name he was one of only 21 Tory MPs to vote against it.
    I just think it fundamentally wrong to suggest his actions were 'token' when he made such an effort to persuade people to vote for a Brexit, however inadequate you personally think that Brexit was, and to justify that with an extremist's interpretation of that Brexit deal which was not shared by 277 Conservative MPs (even if many of them only voted for it as a desperate measure) does not seem reasonable. According to wiki only 34 Tories voted against at its final shot, and several of them were remainers, with some pretty intense leavers accepting it as Brexit, if not a Brexit they liked much.

    Opinion is opinion, but when so many remainers fought so hard to prevent it, and most Tory leavers accepted it, I feel pretty confident in the opinion that the deal was not just Brexit in name only or token acceptance of Brexit. And I certainly think lumping those who supported that repeatedly and forcefully with the strongest of anti-Brexiters (given you claim he went 'mad') is unreasonable, purely on the basis they did not support a no deal.

    Not everyone who voted against no deal was the same, preceding actions and words have relevance. Someone who went mad with anti-Brexit views would not have made such an effort, they'd have stood with Grieve the entire time.
  • The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
    Philip you literally supported a deal and then six months later said it was rubbish, it's not me that is being incomprehensible

    That is a lie.
    I have never said the deal is rubbish.
    Okay you now support the NI elements and you don't want them to be replaced, you support the deal exactly as it was in 2019, thank you - so you disagree with BoJo
    No. Will you actually listen to what people have to say or not?

    The deal was good, much better than what we had at the time.

    That was then, this is now. Now its time to go back for more, for another bite of the cherry, and to deal with NI in a better way that wasn't achievable then.

    If we achieve that, then great.

    If next year an even better way to do so is available, we should do that too.

    Politics doesn't end. Just because something was good enough for 2019 doesn't mean better can't be achieved in 2021. Just because something is good enough for 2021 doesn't mean better can't be achieved in 2025.

    If you're too stupid to understand that very simple concept, then don't accuse me of being incoherent.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    edited August 2021
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392

    The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Oh really?

    I don't. I think one of the best Tory MPs is Liz Truss who voted Remain.

    If you actually stopped for a second to listen to what other people actually say, instead of writing what it suits you to think that they say to suit your agenda, then you might find things more comprehensible.
    Philip you literally supported a deal and then six months later said it was rubbish, it's not me that is being incomprehensible

    That is a lie.
    I have never said the deal is rubbish.
    Okay you now support the NI elements and you don't want them to be replaced, you support the deal exactly as it was in 2019, thank you - so you disagree with BoJo
    No. Will you actually listen to what people have to say or not?

    The deal was good, much better than what we had at the time.

    That was then, this is now. Now its time to go back for more, for another bite of the cherry, and to deal with NI in a better way that wasn't achievable then.

    If we achieve that, then great.

    If next year an even better way to do so is available, we should do that too.

    Politics doesn't end. Just because something was good enough for 2019 doesn't mean better can't be achieved in 2021. Just because something is good enough for 2021 doesn't mean better can't be achieved in 2025.

    If you're too stupid to understand that very simple concept, then don't accuse me of being incoherent.
    Yes, this is a fair point. Switzerland is constantly adjusting - or abandoning - treaties with the EU. It is an endless process. Just as being INSIDE the EU was an endless process of yielding yet more sovereignty, while pretending this wasn’t happening, and lying to the voters to persuade them they didn’t need a vote on anything, and if by mistake you did foolishly give them a referendum, then you just ignored the result if you didn’t like it

    At least our position now is more honest and democratic, like the Swiss attitude
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put back in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584

    Leon said:

    I regret Brexit and I would not change my vote to Remain (if I was asked to join the EU I would either abstain or vote to stay out) but I am quite willing to concede that wanting to stop/cancel Brexit was a mistake and we got that wrong. But unlike some others I am prepared to admit that, whereas they just pretend they haven't said things.

    May's deal was the only workable Brexit there ever was and that is becoming obviously clear as each day passes. And for that she has my respect - we should have voted it through.


    Good for you. Remoaners need to admit they made a terrible mistake. Not in opposing Brexit, that’s perfectly arguable, and we will be arguing it for decades. But trying to overturn a massive democratic vote? Without even enacting it?

    It was immoral and stupid, and also horribly dangerous. Thank God it failed, and British democracy survived
    Remoaners is incredibly immature though and I would say undermines your comment, as stupid as people that call Brexit Brexshit
    I'd never heard that term before. I fully intend to use it from now on though
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,582
    Scott_xP said:

    The people that claim Brexit is done seem to spend an awful lot of time telling us how certain MPs must now be defined by what they think of Brexit

    Brexit is "done" in the same way there is peace in Afghanistan...
    This is nonsense. Ongoing discussions between neighbours over their interactions and trade is the regular state of affairs. The US has them with Canada. Brazil has them with Argentina. Australia has them with New Zealand. Brexit was the exit of the UK from the European Union. That has happened in name and in spirit. The only people pretending it is still a live issue are Remainers that cannot let it go, like some jilted ex.
  • If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?
    Yes, especially if we and the Allies had liberated France and Poland too.

    We did not go to war to invade Germany (though that secured the outcome) but to liberate Poland
  • I am off to make a HelloFresh bye
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
    What?

    The rebuilding and empowering of Japan, while keeping it peaceful, democratic and friendly-to-the-west, was an absolute victory for the West. Huge. Before the war it was a hostile fascist empire that tortured everyone. Now it is, in many ways, a model society, and it likes us.

    This is a triumph. The same way Marshall Aid was a triumph. Germany is now a secure western ally, and fundamentally peaceful and democratic


    We have done many silly things, but let’s not downplay the good stuff
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    edited August 2021
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    South Korea was liberated which was why the US and UN went to war, to keep North Korea out of South Korea.

    Farnham is a good songwriter but another wet leftist politically
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,198
    Boris voted for May's deal.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
    What?

    The rebuilding and empowering of Japan, while keeping it peaceful, democratic and friendly-to-the-west, was an absolute victory for the West. Huge. Before the war it was a hostile fascist empire that tortured everyone. Now it is, in many ways, a model society, and it likes us.

    This is a triumph. The same way Marshall Aid was a triumph. Germany is now a secure western ally, and fundamentally peaceful and democratic


    We have done many silly things, but let’s not downplay the good stuff
    Yes, but your original claim was about South Korea and I was pointing out that they didn’t adopt ‘Western Values’ or a ‘Western economy’ as a result of the war.
  • HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?
    Yes, especially if we and the Allies had liberated France and Poland too.

    We did not go to war to invade Germany (though that secured the outcome) but to liberate Poland
    And we failed to liberate Poland.
  • If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    No, Brexit was done.

    Post-Brexit politics isn't done. NI was resolved, but now its time to improve it for the future.

    Life isn't a book, it doesn't end. There is no final chapter to be written. No final page. No final paragraph, sentence or word.

    We will forever be changing our arrangements. But that doesn't stop Brexit from being done.

    The old deal wasn't rubbish, it was a good deal with elements that were undesireable but necessary as there was no better alternative the EU could agree to at the time. Now we lock in the good bits and turn our own ratchett to resolve the bits that we think should be improved.

    In two years time we do it again. Then we do it again, and again, and again for the rest of eternity. That's politics.
  • Alistair said:

    Boris voted for May's deal.

    He was wrong to do so.

    I said so at the time too.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    Well no its pertinent north korea invaded south korea it was stopped yes...hitler invaded poland etc, if we had just stopped him invading britain and the rest of europe was still under nazi rule then I wouldn't personally call that a victory. Maybe a no score draw which is what south korea north korea was...a nil nil draw
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120
    isam said:


    The fact that MPs who wanted Remain to win the referendum had the nerve to vote Mays deal down was incredible. I couldn’t believe it was happening at the time, and it is just as shocking now.

    It's rare I agree with you but you're absolutely right.

    However, while I thought at the time it made a huge difference and empowered Johnson to victory, with hindsight I'm a bit less convinced.

    How long could or would May have continued? She has said she would have quit had the third Meaningful Vote been passed in late March. Had that happened, would Johnson still not have been in pole position to become Conservative leader and Prime Minister?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    Roger said:

    OT. The Afghan women are much the best advocates for Afghanistan. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnon are an absolute embarrassment. The fact that those two are our leader and potential leader is a ghastly reality

    A superb intervention. Sometimes, Roger, you remind me of the greatest Roman senators

    Just a few lines of oratory - like yours - can change an entire debate, perhaps for generations
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,490
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    South Korea was a dictatorship too until the mid Eighties, and North Korea had a higher GDP per capita into the late 1960s.

    The Korean War ended almost exactly where it began, with the Chinese having pushed the UN forces back to the start line from the Yalu River. It was a costly stalemate.

    Obviously the Vietcong and NLF won the Vietnam war. Americans like to pretend they were not defeated in the field, just by a stab in the back at home, with more than a whiff of a1920s Germany blame game. It is the new Noble Cause narrative, and in popular culture the American forces treated like martyred victims. The reality is that they routinely killed civilians, destroyed villages, made people destitute and homeless. Is it any wonder that they didn't win over the locals?

    My father's cousin was a Colonel there with the Australian Army. He was appalled at the conduct of the war, and quit the army in 1970 very disillusioned. He later developed a painful neuropathy that made his life a misery, thought to be due to exposure to Agent Orange.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    South Korea was liberated which was why the US and UN went to war, to keep North Korea out of South Korea.

    Farnham is a good songwriter but another wet leftist politically
    And he’s right and you’re wrong. As you rather too often are. The goals of the UN were somewhat more complex than you make them out to be. They achieved one - liberating Seoul - but to suggest that was a ‘win’ compared to what they wanted to do is fanciful.

    It has to be said it was largely McArthur and Truman’s fault that it went wahoonie shaped. One telegram to China guaranteeing they would stop at the Yalu River and they would have successfully liberated the whole Korean Peninsula.

    But quite the contrary, they openly discussed invading China too. Bad error.
  • FossFoss Posts: 507
    The Sunday Times has a long article on China and the WHO. It's reasonably damming.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    Leon said:

    Roger said:

    OT. The Afghan women are much the best advocates for Afghanistan. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnon are an absolute embarrassment. The fact that those two are our leader and potential leader is a ghastly reality

    A superb intervention. Sometimes, Roger, you remind me of the greatest Roman senators

    Just a few lines of oratory - like yours - can change an entire debate, perhaps for generations
    Don't be fooled he just sees it as a possible market for his tampon ads and royalties slipping through his hands
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584

    If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    No!

    Johnson has got Brexit done, he said so. The deal was oven ready for the microwave, he said so. If Brexit needs renegotiation he must be a massive liar because he said it was done, and "done" doesn't mean Brexit needs renogiation.

    If Brexit isn't infact "done", the RedWall must be told!
  • stodge said:

    isam said:


    The fact that MPs who wanted Remain to win the referendum had the nerve to vote Mays deal down was incredible. I couldn’t believe it was happening at the time, and it is just as shocking now.

    It's rare I agree with you but you're absolutely right.

    However, while I thought at the time it made a huge difference and empowered Johnson to victory, with hindsight I'm a bit less convinced.

    How long could or would May have continued? She has said she would have quit had the third Meaningful Vote been passed in late March. Had that happened, would Johnson still not have been in pole position to become Conservative leader and Prime Minister?
    Yes but we would have been legally trapped in the Single Market and Customs Union until the EU agreed to let us out of the backstop, without a unilateral exit.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,582

    If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    The European Union themselves were the people who insisted ardently that there were two very separate deals.

    1. The deal on the terms of the British exit from the EU (the Withdrawal Agreement)

    2. The deal on the relationship between an independent UK and the European Union (the Future Relationship)

    The first was the actual Brexit deal, though it was delayed in implementation. That is not being revisited. The second is just a regular set of agreements between neighbouring states. That is obviously going to change over time as all agreements between neighbours do. At this rate, in 2176, when the UK and EU are discussing common safeguards for graviton power cells on space elevators, there will be a handful of people on PB saying "See! Brexit will never be over! It is only a matter of time before we rejoin!"
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,224
    Aslan said:

    The only people pretending it is still a live issue are Remainers that cannot let it go, like some jilted ex.

    BoZo and Frost are Remainers now?

    Wow...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    South Korea was a dictatorship too until the mid Eighties, and North Korea had a higher GDP per capita into the late 1960s.

    The Korean War ended almost exactly where it began, with the Chinese having pushed the UN forces back to the start line from the Yalu River. It was a costly stalemate.

    Obviously the Vietcong and NLF won the Vietnam war. Americans like to pretend they were not defeated in the field, just by a stab in the back at home, with more than a whiff of a1920s Germany blame game. It is the new Noble Cause narrative, and in popular culture the American forces treated like martyred victims. The reality is that they routinely killed civilians, destroyed villages, made people destitute and homeless. Is it any wonder that they didn't win over the locals?

    My father's cousin was a Colonel there with the Australian Army. He was appalled at the conduct of the war, and quit the army in 1970 very disillusioned. He later developed a painful neuropathy that made his life a misery, thought to be due to exposure to Agent Orange.
    The only reason the US and UN went to war in Korea was because North Korea invaded South Korea. North Korea was forced out of South Korea by US and UN forces so they won.

    Just because war can be brutal does not mean the US were defeated on the battlefield. Again they went to war to prevent North Vietnam and the Vietcong taking over South Vietnam. That only occurred after the US forces had withdrawn
  • LeonLeon Posts: 19,392
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
    What?

    The rebuilding and empowering of Japan, while keeping it peaceful, democratic and friendly-to-the-west, was an absolute victory for the West. Huge. Before the war it was a hostile fascist empire that tortured everyone. Now it is, in many ways, a model society, and it likes us.

    This is a triumph. The same way Marshall Aid was a triumph. Germany is now a secure western ally, and fundamentally peaceful and democratic


    We have done many silly things, but let’s not downplay the good stuff
    Yes, but your original claim was about South Korea and I was pointing out that they didn’t adopt ‘Western Values’ or a ‘Western economy’ as a result of the war.
    They really did. I’ve been to South Korea. Have you?

    It is a deeply East Asian society that has nonetheless taken on some of the best of western values. Freedom, rule of law, democracy, respect for the individual. Free expression.

    Also fucking great food (OK maybe that didn’t come from America, but it is great food)

    It’s a shame they have a birth rate of about 0.3 because in other ways S Korea, Japan, and so on, are ideal societies, albeit too formal for most westerners. But they are our allies for a reason: they agree with us on fundamentals

    We are going to need them in the upcoming 50 year Cold War with China
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,582
    Scott_xP said:

    Aslan said:

    The only people pretending it is still a live issue are Remainers that cannot let it go, like some jilted ex.

    BoZo and Frost are Remainers now?

    Wow...
    Pause. Read my post again. They are discussing the ongoing relationship between neighbours. Not the British exit from the EU. Perhaps if I drew it with crayons, you would find it easier?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    edited August 2021
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    South Korea was liberated which was why the US and UN went to war, to keep North Korea out of South Korea.

    Farnham is a good songwriter but another wet leftist politically
    And he’s right and you’re wrong. As you rather too often are. The goals of the UN were somewhat more complex than you make them out to be. They achieved one - liberating Seoul - but to suggest that was a ‘win’ compared to what they wanted to do is fanciful.

    It has to be said it was largely McArthur and Truman’s fault that it went wahoonie shaped. One telegram to China guaranteeing they would stop at the Yalu River and they would have successfully liberated the whole Korean Peninsula.

    But quite the contrary, they openly discussed invading China too. Bad error.
    Of course it was a win, the only reason they went to war was to liberate South Korea after North Korean invasion. Which was achieved.

    The fact MacArthur as the war progressed stupidly decided to try and free North Korea and beyond from the Communists too does not mean that was an original war aim and therefore does not count when deciding whether the war was won or not based on the original reason it was fought
  • If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    No!

    Johnson has got Brexit done, he said so. The deal was oven ready for the microwave, he said so. If Brexit needs renegotiation he must be a massive liar because he said it was done, and "done" doesn't mean Brexit needs renogiation.

    If Brexit isn't infact "done", the RedWall must be told!
    Brexit is done.

    Done does require renegotiation because politics never ends. But that's post-Brexit now.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,362
    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,191

    If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    No!

    Johnson has got Brexit done, he said so. The deal was oven ready for the microwave, he said so. If Brexit needs renegotiation he must be a massive liar because he said it was done, and "done" doesn't mean Brexit needs renogiation.

    If Brexit isn't infact "done", the RedWall must be told!
    Brexit is done.

    Done does require renegotiation because politics never ends. But that's post-Brexit now.
    It's not done. We still haven't sorted out customs into the UK.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,541
    On this piece about Britain's (apparently) only known female contract killer there is the statement that the average cost of a contract killer is £15,180.

    I dread to think how that is known, but I do want to know if Brexit has affected rates and availability, as all things must be tied to Brexit after all.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbqpg/the-bartender-who-became-britains-one-and-only-female-contract-killer?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
    an alt history novel is a what if not a what would have been
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 21,224
    Aslan said:

    They are discussing the ongoing relationship between neighbours. Not the British exit from the EU.

    Nope

    It's the withdrawal agreement they are trying to rewrite.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,211
    kle4 said:

    On this piece about Britain's (apparently) only known female contract killer there is the statement that the average cost of a contract killer is £15,180.

    I dread to think how that is known, but I do want to know if Brexit has affected rates and availability, as all things must be tied to Brexit after all.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbqpg/the-bartender-who-became-britains-one-and-only-female-contract-killer?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    I suppose they are also struggling at the border with all the extra paperwork needed?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713
    kle4 said:

    On this piece about Britain's (apparently) only known female contract killer there is the statement that the average cost of a contract killer is £15,180.

    I dread to think how that is known, but I do want to know if Brexit has affected rates and availability, as all things must be tied to Brexit after all.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbqpg/the-bartender-who-became-britains-one-and-only-female-contract-killer?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    They are being fleeced plenty of dark web sites where you can get it at half the price
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949
    edited August 2021
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
    What?

    The rebuilding and empowering of Japan, while keeping it peaceful, democratic and friendly-to-the-west, was an absolute victory for the West. Huge. Before the war it was a hostile fascist empire that tortured everyone. Now it is, in many ways, a model society, and it likes us.

    This is a triumph. The same way Marshall Aid was a triumph. Germany is now a secure western ally, and fundamentally peaceful and democratic


    We have done many silly things, but let’s not downplay the good stuff
    Yes, but your original claim was about South Korea and I was pointing out that they didn’t adopt ‘Western Values’ or a ‘Western economy’ as a result of the war.
    They really did. I’ve been to South Korea. Have you?

    It is a deeply East Asian society that has nonetheless taken on some of the best of western values. Freedom, rule of law, democracy, respect for the individual. Free expression.

    Also fucking great food (OK maybe that didn’t come from America, but it is great food)

    It’s a shame they have a birth rate of about 0.3 because in other ways S Korea, Japan, and so on, are ideal societies, albeit too formal for most westerners. But they are our allies for a reason: they agree with us on fundamentals

    We are going to need them in the upcoming 50 year Cold War with China
    Once more, in the hope of getting through:

    I am not disputing that they are like that *now.*

    I am pointing out that that’s a much later development not directly linked to the result of the Korean War.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
    In Dominion Britain surrendered to the Nazis
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,153
    Leon said:

    Roger said:

    OT. The Afghan women are much the best advocates for Afghanistan. Keir Starmer and Boris Johnon are an absolute embarrassment. The fact that those two are our leader and potential leader is a ghastly reality

    A superb intervention. Sometimes, Roger, you remind me of the greatest Roman senators

    Just a few lines of oratory - like yours - can change an entire debate, perhaps for generations
    Can you imagine how enhanced the Roman Senate would have been with Roger and Malc? Wow! Cicero would have cowered in humiliation when faced with such titanic eloquence. Indeed I doubt Rome would ever have fallen with its legions spurred by the rousing oratory of those two masters of the art. Western Civilisation may have taken a different, and dare I say better, course if led by Roger and Malc, perhaps in a Triumverate with HYUFD.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,490
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
    That is simply not going to happen. The Taliban will do much more with narcotics than terrorism to damage the West.

    There is simply no way that Americans or anyone else will invade Afghanistan again, at least not for the forseeable. The reasons are as follows:

    1) There is no political will to go back in
    2) 2001 was a unique circumstance to invade after 9/11 with worldwide support. That worldwide support was squandered.
    3) The Taliban have taken over weapons dumps that equip them better than they have ever had.
    4) There are no local bases to mount an invasion from.

    We may do some bombing and drone strikes, but otherwise this is the end.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,584

    If you want to improve the Brexit deal then that's fine.

    But then Brexit isn't done - and you claiming it was in 2019 was a lie. And you claiming that the deal would resolve Brexit was also a lie.

    The deal has not done either, NI remains completely unresolved and pretending that a deal you said was great is now needing to be changed less than a year later suggests total dishonesty when you say the old deal wasn't rubbish. You implied it was above.

    No!

    Johnson has got Brexit done, he said so. The deal was oven ready for the microwave, he said so. If Brexit needs renegotiation he must be a massive liar because he said it was done, and "done" doesn't mean Brexit needs renogiation.

    If Brexit isn't infact "done", the RedWall must be told!
    Brexit is done.

    Done does require renegotiation because politics never ends. But that's post-Brexit now.
    Brexit is either "done" or not "done". Which is it? I'll take your word for which it is, but it is one or the other. If it is "done" it doesn't need renegotiation.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 21,191
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
    That is simply not going to happen. The Taliban will do much more with narcotics than terrorism to damage the West.

    There is simply no way that Americans or anyone else will invade Afghanistan again, at least not for the forseeable. The reasons are as follows:

    1) There is no political will to go back in
    2) 2001 was a unique circumstance to invade after 9/11 with worldwide support. That worldwide support was squandered.
    3) The Taliban have taken over weapons dumps that equip them better than they have ever had.
    4) There are no local bases to mount an invasion from.

    We may do some bombing and drone strikes, but otherwise this is the end.
    Of course, HYUFD's War Aim No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is, never admit he is wrong.

    And 5 is, invade everyone else.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,362
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
    an alt history novel is a what if not a what would have been
    Of course. I am merely saying that in my opinion it would have been very similar to the political scenario which forms he backdrop to Dominion.

    Do you think Hitler would have let Britain carry on as if nothing had happened if he had been left with hegenomy over Europe?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,490
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay
    That happened a long time after the Korean War and indeed, the ending of the war made the adoption of those values seem less likely. Syngman Rhee was put in charge by the Americans and held in power by force for years, much like Thieu or Magsaysay and later Marcos.

    If there was a ‘winner’ from the war it was Japan, which became the arsenal and depot of the UN in the Korean War and as such had billions of dollars and huge amounts of technical expertise poured into it that rebuilt its shattered economy and society.
    What?

    The rebuilding and empowering of Japan, while keeping it peaceful, democratic and friendly-to-the-west, was an absolute victory for the West. Huge. Before the war it was a hostile fascist empire that tortured everyone. Now it is, in many ways, a model society, and it likes us.

    This is a triumph. The same way Marshall Aid was a triumph. Germany is now a secure western ally, and fundamentally peaceful and democratic


    We have done many silly things, but let’s not downplay the good stuff
    Yes, but your original claim was about South Korea and I was pointing out that they didn’t adopt ‘Western Values’ or a ‘Western economy’ as a result of the war.
    They really did. I’ve been to South Korea. Have you?

    It is a deeply East Asian society that has nonetheless taken on some of the best of western values. Freedom, rule of law, democracy, respect for the individual. Free expression.

    Also fucking great food (OK maybe that didn’t come from America, but it is great food)

    It’s a shame they have a birth rate of about 0.3 because in other ways S Korea, Japan, and so on, are ideal societies, albeit too formal for most westerners. But they are our allies for a reason: they agree with us on fundamentals

    We are going to need them in the upcoming 50 year Cold War with China
    Once more, in the hope of getting through:

    I am not disputing that they are like that *now.*

    I am pointing out that that’s a much later development not directly linked to the result of the Korean War.
    Indeed, and paradoxically what kickstarted the South Korean economy in the Seventies were the money that the US paid to South Korea to provide troops for the Vietnam War. That money went both to the government, but also too the soldiers themselves, who returned Laden with consumer goods.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,713

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
    an alt history novel is a what if not a what would have been
    Of course. I am merely saying that in my opinion it would have been very similar to the political scenario which forms he backdrop to Dominion.

    Do you think Hitler would have let Britain carry on as if nothing had happened if he had been left with hegenomy over Europe?
    Not having read dominion I cannot comment on likely or unlikely, I was merely pointing out there is a difference between what if fiction and reality and you cannot point to fiction and say this would have happened
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 47,949

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    If in the second world war we had stopped hitler invading britain and left it at that would you claim britain won?

    Tough question. Also irrelevant
    If in the second world war we had stopped Hitler invading britain and left it at that we would very quickly have become a subject state of the Third Reich.

    C.J. Samson's alt-history novel Dominion paints a convincing picture of what that would have looked like.
    an alt history novel is a what if not a what would have been
    Of course. I am merely saying that in my opinion it would have been very similar to the political scenario which forms he backdrop to Dominion.

    Do you think Hitler would have let Britain carry on as if nothing had happened if he had been left with hegenomy over Europe?
    The peace terms he offered were similar to those he offered France. Which in any event lasted barely three years.

    It would not have been the status quo ante.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120
    HYUFD said:


    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must

    I don't think your claim about US troops in Vietnam is accurate. American forces withdrew steadily during 1973 and were gone before Ford took over.

    I do agree North Vietnam flagrantly violated the terms of the Paris Accords - my contention is either the Americans were ridiculously naive or they knew full well Hanoi couldn't be trusted but needed to withdraw troops to satisfy public opinion back home and the consequences of that decision, while recognised, weren't enough to maintain the military presence.

    Trump has done the same as Nixon - tried to convince American public opinion the soldiers could be withdrawn and brought home with honour but Trump's advisors must have known the risks of disengagement.

    In both instances, Washington provided the local Government with the means to hold the line in terms of equipment but what you can't provide is the will.

    I'm not sure where an open-ended commitment to station troops in various parts of the world leaves us and could not Moscow or Beijing (or others) make a similar argument?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,355
    edited August 2021
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
    That is simply not going to happen. The Taliban will do much more with narcotics than terrorism to damage the West.

    There is simply no way that Americans or anyone else will invade Afghanistan again, at least not for the forseeable. The reasons are as follows:

    1) There is no political will to go back in
    2) 2001 was a unique circumstance to invade after 9/11 with worldwide support. That worldwide support was squandered.
    3) The Taliban have taken over weapons dumps that equip them better than they have ever had.
    4) There are no local bases to mount an invasion from.

    We may do some bombing and drone strikes, but otherwise this is the end.
    ?Rome : Dacia as USA : Afghanistan or Viet Nam?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,490
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
    That is simply not going to happen. The Taliban will do much more with narcotics than terrorism to damage the West.

    There is simply no way that Americans or anyone else will invade Afghanistan again, at least not for the forseeable. The reasons are as follows:

    1) There is no political will to go back in
    2) 2001 was a unique circumstance to invade after 9/11 with worldwide support. That worldwide support was squandered.
    3) The Taliban have taken over weapons dumps that equip them better than they have ever had.
    4) There are no local bases to mount an invasion from.

    We may do some bombing and drone strikes, but otherwise this is the end.
    Of course, HYUFD's War Aim No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is, never admit he is wrong.

    And 5 is, invade everyone else.
    I think too we may well foment division between Afghan factions and incite rebellions and civil war against the Taliban, by covert means. It is unlikely to make the lot of the average Afghan better.

    Any Afghan with any sense should flee. Expect them to turn up in dinghies shortly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,850
    edited August 2021
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes the US were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, just wet McGovernite leftists won the PR war by 1973 and the US public did not have the stomach for more casualties. Same as now unfortunately, wet leftists are winning the PR war on both sides of the Atlantic and potentially allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for Jihadis again as the US and UK withdraw.

    However war has casualties, it comes with the territory unfortunately, even if you win

    It was the Republican Nixon who sent Kissinger to deal directly with the North Vietnamese and effectively forced Thieu to sign the Paris Accords of 1973 which were the death warrant for South Vietnam.

    It was the Republican Trump who initiated direct talks with the Taliban and signed the Doha treaty.

    Both Paris and Doha were fig leaves signed by cynical Right-wing leaders. They were an attempt to convince public opinion at home the soldiers had achieved their mission and could come home with honour.

    In truth, they left both the ARVN in 1975 and the Afghan Army in 2021 with the means to hold the line but none of that matters if the will isn't there.

    The truth is neither South Vietnam nor Afghanistan has enough leaders and people filling to fight and die for the Government. I suspect the leaderships of both countries have their financial and personal sanctuaries arranged - they can fly away to exile if things get difficult - the ordinary soldier can't. From the point of view of that soldier, if their leaders aren't prepared to fight and die for their country, why should they?
    Nixon won in 1972 over McGovern on a platform of keeping US forces in Vietnam.

    The Paris Peace accords were also supposed to see North Vietnam respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and only accept Vietnamese unification by peaceful agreement of all concerned. North Vietnam resumed offensives in March 1973 rendering them redundant and ended too Nixon's suspension of hostilities. Only once Nixon left office did US forces leave Vietnam.

    Romney would be a far better president than Trump or Biden and opposes the withdrawal.

    There may not be the will for now but once the next major terrorist atrocity hits New York, LA, Houston or Chicago planned and plotted by jihadi terrorists back across Afghanistan after US withdrawal, which sadly may well be just a matter of time, the US will likely have to intervene again.

    If national security requires western troops in Afghanistan indefinitely so be it, regardless of whether their own government is able to defend themselves and keep out the terrorists we must
    That is simply not going to happen. The Taliban will do much more with narcotics than terrorism to damage the West.

    There is simply no way that Americans or anyone else will invade Afghanistan again, at least not for the forseeable. The reasons are as follows:

    1) There is no political will to go back in
    2) 2001 was a unique circumstance to invade after 9/11 with worldwide support. That worldwide support was squandered.
    3) The Taliban have taken over weapons dumps that equip them better than they have ever had.
    4) There are no local bases to mount an invasion from.

    We may do some bombing and drone strikes, but otherwise this is the end.
    Complacency. The Taliban are at heart ultra extreme Islamists just like AQ and all the other jihadis with a common enemy, the west and western values.

    There may not be the will to go back now, if however another terror attack hits a major US city like 9/11 launched and planned by jihadis in Afghanistan and leading to hundreds or even thousands of casualties then US forces will be back in Afghanistan within a month.

    Operation Enduring Freedom was launched from US and British ships and submarines via missile and and airstrikes anyway, the ground invasion was launched from the heartlands of the Northern Alliance, warlords the Taliban are unlikely to be able to fully defeat and would be done in the same way again.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120

    stodge said:


    It's rare I agree with you but you're absolutely right.

    However, while I thought at the time it made a huge difference and empowered Johnson to victory, with hindsight I'm a bit less convinced.

    How long could or would May have continued? She has said she would have quit had the third Meaningful Vote been passed in late March. Had that happened, would Johnson still not have been in pole position to become Conservative leader and Prime Minister?

    Yes but we would have been legally trapped in the Single Market and Customs Union until the EU agreed to let us out of the backstop, without a unilateral exit.
    Yes but that would have been the will of the majority of the Commons at that time. I understand your opposition but @isam made the point the pro-Remain MPs committed political suicide by continually refusing the will of the people.

    Had they agreed to May's deal (with all your imperfections), the charge of resisting the will of the people could not have stuck.

    That might well have led to an existential struggle between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party who would have accused the Conservatives of "betraying the spirit of the vote".

    However, Corbyn would still be Labour leader and that in itself always gives the Conservatives a chance and of course Covid would still have happened so we'd have the Conservatives under Hunt or Javid looking head to a 2022 election and asking Brexit party supporters whether, by voting against the Conservatives, they would be happy to see Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    That's how it seems to be with the Conservatives - heads we win, tails you lose.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 31,490
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    "With all its might and hi-tech sophistication, the US has allowed itself to be beaten by medieval dogmatists on horseback."

    Rory Stewart

    I think we should just pay him a few billion and get him to sort it out. My guess is that he would mostly.
    He is unusually and impressively, genuinely connected with the region. He's also extremely articulate. It's such a shame that he was tossed aside..
    He chose to step aside. I rate him very highly. His specialist subject is Afghanistan, and I'd just let him try. Anything he wants in terms of funding. I'd guess not more than a 30% chance of success, but that's better than the current 0%.
    It should be noted that in Vietnam the US military machine was beaten effectively by a load of peasants on 1/2 bowl of rice a day and cheap rifles.
    This always amuses me

    This is obviously true that the advanced us military has been defeated by insurgents armed with fairly ancient weapons in vietnam, korea and in afghanistan. Yet people say the american second amendment is wrong because having guns in the hands of citizens of the us wont enable them to stand up to the us governement. I suggest they would do as well as the vietnames, koreans or afghani's
    The US won the Korean War, North Korea was forced back out of South Korea after the North Korean invasion of the South and South Korea remains independent today
    That’s an extremely one-sided interpretation of the Korean War. It would be more accurate to say the UN (not the US, forces from 16 nations were involved) was not defeated.
    Not defeated is not the same as won though
    That was my point.
    Ah sorry thought you were supporting the they won argument
    I don’t think anyone can claim they ‘won’ the Korean War, although that didn’t stop Mao, Syngman and Kim from trying to.

    The most succinct summary of the outcome I ever came across was John Farnham. ‘It cost 2 million [actually more like 3 million] lives to get exactly nowhere.’
    The West very definitely won the Korean War. Look at South Korea and North Korea now. The latter is disowned even by the Chinese. The former is an economic powerhouse and cultural superpower. Western values prevailed. And yay

    The West lost the Vietnam war. Tho Vietnam is now virulently capitalist in all but name, and Ho Chi Minh City now calls itself Saigon, once again, and looks more to Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore than Beijing
    South Korea was a dictatorship too until the mid Eighties, and North Korea had a higher GDP per capita into the late 1960s.

    The Korean War ended almost exactly where it began, with the Chinese having pushed the UN forces back to the start line from the Yalu River. It was a costly stalemate.

    Obviously the Vietcong and NLF won the Vietnam war. Americans like to pretend they were not defeated in the field, just by a stab in the back at home, with more than a whiff of a1920s Germany blame game. It is the new Noble Cause narrative, and in popular culture the American forces treated like martyred victims. The reality is that they routinely killed civilians, destroyed villages, made people destitute and homeless. Is it any wonder that they didn't win over the locals?

    My father's cousin was a Colonel there with the Australian Army. He was appalled at the conduct of the war, and quit the army in 1970 very disillusioned. He later developed a painful neuropathy that made his life a misery, thought to be due to exposure to Agent Orange.
    Just because war can be brutal does not mean the US were defeated on the battlefield. Again they went to war to prevent North Vietnam and the Vietcong taking over South Vietnam. That only occurred after the US forces had withdrawn
    Your support of the US right wing "Noble Cause" narrative of being undefeated on the battlefield is simply not true.

    America retreated from South Vietnam and Cambodia because the Vietnamese were inflicting too many casualties on them. That is what constitutes a defeat.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,120
    HYUFD said:


    Complacency. The Taliban are at heart ultra extreme Islamists just like AQ and all the other jihadis with a common enemy, the west and western values.

    There may not be the will to go back now, if however another terror attack hits a major US city like 9/11 launched and planned by jihadis in Afghanistan and leading to hundreds or even thousands of casualties then US forces will be back in Afghanistan within a month.

    Operation Enduring Freedom was launched from US and British ships and submarines via missile and and airstrikes anyway, the ground invasion was launched from the heartlands of the Northern Alliance, warlords the Taliban are unlikely to be able to fully defeat and would be done in the same way again.

    So we come down to the old Marxist adage:

    History repeats itself first as tragedy second as farce.
This discussion has been closed.