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

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

I’m beginning to think foxy is a fucking commie

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

I’m beginning to think foxy is a fucking commie

Alistair said:

Once again I renew my calls to invade Florida for the good of America.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

Its done.

Any renegotiation now is not about Brexit but post-Brexit.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

Mexicanpete said:

.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

Its done.

Any renegotiation now is not about Brexit but post-Brexit.

So in a nutshell, it's done, but it's not done.

geoffw said:

Alistair said:

At current rates in about 3 weeks time as many Floridians will die of Covid as died in 9/11

Once again I renew my calls to invade Florida for the good of America.

How many Floridians died in 9/11?

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Do yo seriously think there was any other possible outcome of WW2 than either total defeat of Nazi Germany or British subjugation?

Scott_xP said:

THE OBSERVER: Afghans flee Kabul in panic as Taliban forces close in
#TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1426637968069046274/photo/1

Foxy said:

Once the Taliban can shell the Kabul airport, the only way out for refugees would be by chopper. Let's hope our Paras don't get stuck there.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

Philip can't believe this rubbish, he must be on a wind up. Done now doesn't mean done.

I have done my eating for the day, done though involves another trip to the fridge

Scott_xP said:

Mexicanpete said:

So in a nutshell, it's done, but it's not done.

It's not done.

We have failed to implement much of it. And some of the bits we have, BoZo wants to abandon.

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Do yo seriously think there was any other possible outcome of WW2 than either total defeat of Nazi Germany or British subjugation?

It is quite possible Halifax could have done a deal with Hitler allowing him full control of continental Europe and the British to keep the Empire and remain independent. Whether that would have lasted the course we will never know, it would certainly have been less secure than keeping up the fight with the Nazis

Scott_xP said:

🔴 "Britain's ambassador is to be airlifted from Afghanistan by Sunday evening amid fears that the Taliban could imminently take Kabul and seize the airport"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/14/uk-envoy-afghanistan-airlifted-talibans-arrival/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1628971651

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Sometimes you talk utter shit.
This is one of them.

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

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.

Scott_xP said:

President Biden announces the deployment of an additional 5,000 troops to Afghanistan, “to make sure we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission..."
https://twitter.com/ZoraSuleman/status/1426640516234588161

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Precisely.

There we have it folks!

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Do yo seriously think there was any other possible outcome of WW2 than either total defeat of Nazi Germany or British subjugation?

It is quite possible Halifax could have done a deal with Hitler allowing him full control of continental Europe and the British to keep the Empire and remain independent. Whether that would have lasted the course we will never know, it would certainly have been less secure than keeping up the fight with the Nazis

No, you are deeply misguided here. Please tell me which agreement Hitler ever made that he stuck to.

The recent film Darkest Hour is pretty good on this, fiction though it is, because at one point you find yourself thinking (at least I did) that seeking terms with Hitler is the only sensible thing to do with the British army trapped by the Wehrmacht in Northern France. But as Churchill is rightly made to say in the film, you cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.

There was only one alternative in 1940 to fighting to the end: subjugation to a Nazi dictatorship.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip/Boris world:

France should win the Euros.

France win the Euros.

Actually I didn't want France to win the Euros, England won the Euros.

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

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.

Oh you're right that May managed to find a form of "Brexit" that was Remain in all but name. We would have still been in the Single Market, still been in the Customs Union. On no issue that we'd debated in 2016 would we have left. And it was torpedoed largely by Remain MPs voting with hardcore Brexiteers, absolutely remarkable.

I agree with almost every line with your post except that its not the Tories fault that Labour chose Corbyn as their leader. That's not on the Conservatives.

But if the Remain MPs hadn't been so silly then they'd have seen us Remain in practice even though not in name despite losing the referendum. That would've been a true "heads we win, tails you lose".

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip/Boris world:

France should win the Euros.

France win the Euros.

Actually I didn't want France to win the Euros, England won the Euros.

CorrectHorseBattery world:

Portugal won the Euros.

Why were England and Spain playing in the Euros this year? Portugal already won them years ago, don't they realise the Euros are done.

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

What a stupid analogy.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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

Do yo seriously think there was any other possible outcome of WW2 than either total defeat of Nazi Germany or British subjugation?

It is quite possible Halifax could have done a deal with Hitler allowing him full control of continental Europe and the British to keep the Empire and remain independent. Whether that would have lasted the course we will never know, it would certainly have been less secure than keeping up the fight with the Nazis

No, you are deeply misguided here. Please tell me which agreement Hitler ever made that he stuck to.

The recent film Darkest Hour is pretty good on this, fiction though it is, because at one point you find yourself thinking (at least I did) that seeking terms with Hitler is the only sensible thing to do with the British army trapped by the Wehrmacht in Northern France. But as Churchill is rightly made to say in the film, you cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.

There was only one alternative in 1940 to fighting to the end: subjugation to a Nazi dictatorship.

A film totally ruined by that utterly stupid tube scene.

It was certainly cheesy, I'll give you that, but it didn't ruin the film for me.

On which topic: which is the best Churchill film/TV portrayal?

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
·
7h
Labour have kicked out Ken Loach, Britain's greatest living film maker, whose films have moved and inspired millions, while readmitting Trevor Phillips.

That tells you all you need to know about the state of the current Labour party.

Ken Loach left Labour in the mid nineties, and only rejoined in 2016 as I understand, and in the meantime campaigned for a number of hard left and Trotskyist factions including Socialist Resistance and the Scargillite Socialist Labour Party.

The idea that he is some cuddly heart and soul of Labour old member doesn't match his story arc very well. He looks more like a Trotskyite entryist.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

I had an absolutely brilliant day today. I woke in my deeply soothing hotel at 10.30am. The perfect time to wake, as Burlington Bertie well knew

I am staying here


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/greece/athens/hotels/the-modernist-athens-hotel/

£100 a night. Insanely good value

I had two strong coffees then set to some flint knapping. When the bulk was done I let the maids clean my room by retiring to the sun lashed roof terrace, where I had a prawn saganaki brunch, with some fine cold beers. With a view of the Acropolis.

Then - thanks to the great advice of PB - I took a €4 Uber (which arrived in 2 minutes) from my hotel to the National Archaeological Museum. Took 6 minutes. Athens is empty. No queues.

There I saw the Antikythera Mechanism, the most startling and provoking scientific artifact I have ever encountered in my life. No exaggeration. And I also saw the great hoards of Mycenaean gold unearthed by Schliemann. So I learned that noble Mycenaens would bury their dead babies in clothes of pure gold. Exquisitely sad yet somehow enriching

Then I had a fucking big jug of ouzo in the museum gardens. Got another Uber home (4 minutes). I worked out on a weird wooden modernist peloton. Showered. Went to buy fine Cretan wine. Had a chat with locals.

Then I ate ‘freakfish with seasonal greens’ in a streetside solonaki taverna under the plane trees - no idea what it was. But yummy. Also ‘soft Arcadian feta’. And then I argued with you guys about Vietnam.

Now I lie abed, with Venus conspicuous overhead. Of such days is happiness made

I think you'll find that's Jupiter but don't let that spoil your lovely day - sounds divine either way.

A very fine day here in Dorset too, plenty of sunshine. Topped the wild flower meadow then watched Man U wallop Leeds. Caprese salad (inspired by @Leon) followed by fish pie washed down with a nice white Rioja. Happy days.

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip/Boris world:

France should win the Euros.

France win the Euros.

Actually I didn't want France to win the Euros, England won the Euros.

CorrectHorseBattery world:

Portugal won the Euros.

Why were England and Spain playing in the Euros this year? Portugal already won them years ago, don't they realise the Euros are done.

You must have been on the sauce earlier than me Philip!

Why you're acting as though because something was done in the past, there can't be new variants in the future.

Just because dinner was done in the past, doesn't mean you can't have a new dinner today.
Just because the Premier League was done in the past, doesn't mean a new season can't start today.
Just because Brexit was done in the past, doesn't mean post-Brexit political debates can't happen today.

Life doesn't end.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Precisely.

There we have it folks!

What we do tomorrow is for the people of tomorrow to decide.

Why would you think anything lasts forever? We signed up to the Lisbon Treaty and now we aren't sticking to it anymore. If we sign up to anything it means we intend to stick to it today, no more and no less than that.

You really are a prick.

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Precisely.

There we have it folks!

What we do tomorrow is for the people of tomorrow to decide.

Why would you think anything lasts forever? We signed up to the Lisbon Treaty and now we aren't sticking to it anymore. If we sign up to anything it means we intend to stick to it today, no more and no less than that.

You really are a prick.

Just because I'm right and you can't answer the argument?

Nothing lasts forever.

rottenborough said:

Ridley Scott?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1426646970626609153

Plain sailing...

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Precisely.

There we have it folks!

What we do tomorrow is for the people of tomorrow to decide.

Why would you think anything lasts forever? We signed up to the Lisbon Treaty and now we aren't sticking to it anymore. If we sign up to anything it means we intend to stick to it today, no more and no less than that.

You really are a prick.

Just because I'm right and you can't answer the argument?

Nothing lasts forever.

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

Pagan2 said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

rottenborough said:

Omnium said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Omnium said:

rottenborough 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.

No it is what constitutes losing a PR war and withdrawing your troops from the fight, not being defeated in battle

Think of the American/Vietnam War as a PB argument. As long as you continue the fight, no amount of logical defeat matters, if you still participate, while your opponent gives up and goes home, you are the victor.

The simplist, albeit extremely costly in terms of casualties, way to win a war is to keep fighting despite defeat. The Soviets did this in 1941-42, Mao did it on his long march, the Vietcong did it and so has the Taliban.

An interesting point, not without merit. Just keep fighting until everyone gets so bored and weary they say Oh fuck it, here you go. Yes that happens, for sure. ‘The best lack all conviction’

However I point you to the recent counter-example of the Remoaners. Such as our own Scott. Their extreme mulish stupidity and endless feuding grievance is not just pointless, it is counter-productive. They have already kicked away the chance of a compromise they might have tolerated, they are tarnishing their brand forever

Rejoin = Nutters

Nothing is forever.

Explain that to @CorrectHorseBattery

He thinks that if your dinner today is done, then you can't have dinner tomorrow. He doesn't understand that tomorrow's dinner will be a new dinner and not today's dinner.

Yes, let me explain @CorrectHorseBattery:

In Borisland just because we have negotiated and signed up to an agreement that doesn't mean we are going to stick to it tomorrow.

Precisely.

There we have it folks!

What we do tomorrow is for the people of tomorrow to decide.

Why would you think anything lasts forever? We signed up to the Lisbon Treaty and now we aren't sticking to it anymore. If we sign up to anything it means we intend to stick to it today, no more and no less than that.

You really are a prick.

Just because I'm right and you can't answer the argument?

Nothing lasts forever.

Wasn't your gripe with Theresa's deal that it crushed us beneath the EU yoke in perpetuity? Couldn't we have signed up and then just ignored it when it suited us then?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Rishi seems to be very against this war on woke crap, my respect for him grows