The Greatest Generation
- This topic has 16 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ivan Aivazovsky Constantinople in Moonlight 1846 This is a letter by Scott Ritter, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. It was p
[See the full post at: The Greatest Generation]I was born in 1962 and my fitness report contains a number in the Block entitled Days in Combat. Not for one moment was my Marine unit aware whether our contribution to the combat effort was consequential any more than the Marine general who commanded us knew what we were doing at any particular time. However, The General briefed us to expect 1/3rd casualties by the end of the first day’s battle we were about to enter 2 hours later. War is grotesque dumbfuckery no matter Ritter’s exposition. Ritter should refrain from telling anyone for what they should be grateful.
Scott is a narcissist as his writing is infused with “it’s all about him” and his track record pursuing teenage girls. What he saw and what his family members did doesn’t confer a damn thing on him just because he observed it. Brokaw exhibited the same behavior. In America we have a whole class of people who “adopt” the traits, characteristics and accomplishments of others. We call them Jaycees, politicians and C-suite creatures. Their magical tool is acquisitive projective identification and they wield this defense mechanism with skill and perseverance.
The slaughter of young people for a Megalomaniac’s ambition is always repugnant.
At least Russia’s WWII sacrifice was in response to an existential threat.From a Guardian article, posted prev. in top post by Ilargi:
Ukraine will prevail over Russia as freedom prevailed over the Nazi dictatorship in 1945, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, will say in a TV address to mark the 77th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, in which he will accuse Vladimir Putin of falsifying history.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree
It is always projection – they accuse others of doing what they are doing, in a kind of pre-emptive stab at negating the criticisms that will be lobbed at them – heh, that is a generous interpretation, as it implies some kind of willful, thought-out strategy.
Yes, mobilising, encouraging, financing, arming, Nazi-types, Ukr. Banderistas, is a tad awkward, in view of past history (Nazi-Hilter-Evil) but that isn’t too serious, prop. and the MSM can take of that, everyone knows REAL hate for others is in the hearts of Russians (Putin, whatever…) 😉
The USuk’s modus operandi, finance – is super cheap! – those primed to be violent troublemakers, or mercenaries, or just poor men, women, struggling, of any stripe: Mujahideen, ISIS, Kurds, ‘terrorist groups’, ‘islamists’, also, Israelis who kill Arabs, and more, plus fake humanitarian orgs. (e.g. White Helmets), all that can be spun for the public, no problems there, just carry on!
For the modern-day American nation, there is only the stupid and selfish convenience of the moment. This, among many other things, will be our undoing.
D. Rich,
I appreciate your comments but am sometimes confused by your writing; simply cannot infer what might be obvious to you and probably others.With regard to your last sentence, it seems you are taking a jab at some country or person, but it’s just not clear to me. “At least Russia’s WWII sacrifice was in response to an existential threat.” Could you clarify?
Again, your comments often are valuable to me, but I can remember having some of those very thoughts about you. If my addled old brain remembers correctly, you’ve made it clear you graduated from the academy, know a bunch of admirals and generals, and basically dislike/resent all of them, their decisions and how they got where they did. Have I understood all that correctly? (I’m a curious carpenter, not a psychiatrist or anything)
@TAESummary:
The only thing that feels ominously similar to me is that every single contrived enemy leader is compared to Hitler, and Nazi ambitions from 80 years ago are trotted out as the excuse to never, ever, ever engage in diplomacy. There are plenty of examples from history of conflicts settled by truce without fighting to total capitulation.
Back in the day his forthrightness about WMD made a good impression on me but, come on, Scott (I love to masturbate in front of my webcam) Ritter is not someone I will ever quote in any discussion today.
@Boogaloo -” There are plenty of examples from history of conflicts settled by truce without fighting to total capitulation.”
I agree. The ominous similarity is with the west’s refusal to negotiate. People compare Zelensky to Churchill and the comparison is apt but not for the reason people think.Ivan Aivazovsky Constantinople in Moonlight 1846
Gorgeous painting on so many levels…
I love Ivan Aivazovsky’s art…I admit my bias. After Vietnam, in my remaining year in the U.S. Army, I could have been deployed to Germany if the Soviets invaded. We would have been lucky to survive a week against the Red Army.
I am currently slowly watching the French TV Show “The Bureau”. Its war sections are good enough to bring back recollections. It really highlights the power of informational warfare – PSYOPS. The Kurds who retook Raqqa Syria with NATO air support are completely ignored in the USA. Keeping the troops in Syria finally was acknowledged by Donald Trump as keeping Syrian oil for the USA. There are no Sunni English culture ISIS web sites in the West. NATO has become quite effective at using minorities as proxy forces against its enemies.
The USA/UK + EU (NATO) are now fighting a proxy World War III against the Russia Federation. The active Russophile and Russophobe web sites mostly ignore this basic fact and present absolutely contradictory misinformation. The basic national strategic imperative is never to fight your enemy’s war. Sorry to burst bubbles. But neoliberalism has infested both the West and Russia. Its primary characteristic is that rulers believe their own propaganda. If Ukraine was about to invade, be smart, not stupid. Replay Pearl Harbor. But no. Instead Russia invaded and is in a long slog with a nuclear war as a very real outcome. The only way out is a peace treaty that allows ethnic Ukraine to keep Odessa with its access to the Black Sea and Russia regains most of the Czar’s land east of Dnieper River it has reconquered. A manned DMZ (a new Iron Curtain) is needed to stop the shelling between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and to restore detente.
@Vietnam Vet: It has occurred to me that it would be smarter for Russia to take the ethnic Russian section of post-Soviet Ukraine and annex the half of it that shares an eastern border with Russia and terminates in the south with the Crimean peninsula, and then leave the rest for Ukraine. Not only would letting Ukraine keep Odessa and Nikolaev retain that country’s access to the Black Sea, but Dneiperpetrovsk was part of the original Ukrainian heartland, even if it is currently occupied by ethnic Russians.
But as for just letting Ukraine attack the Donbass, sorry, but I’m pretty sure Russia simply had enough of standing by while the nazified ethnic Ukrainians massacred the ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.