Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Communist Ideology in America's Security Agencies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I hope you have your tin foil hat at the ready, mw?
    If that makes you happier than getting wisdom and understanding, then keep on disregarding the evidence. I'm not sure what basis you have to reject the evidence she is talking about.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      If that makes you happier than getting wisdom and understanding, then keep on disregarding the evidence. I'm not sure what basis you have to reject the evidence she is talking about.
      That you take that nonsense as wisdom and understanding shows that you have little wisdon or understanding. That you believe Stalin and his secret police occupied and ran the U.S. government following WW!! is beyond ludicrous. West is either a complete wack job, or she's just out to make a lot of money from her targeted naive audience, you know, the tin foil hat crowd.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        That you take that nonsense as wisdom and understanding shows that you have little wisdon or understanding. That you believe Stalin and his secret police occupied and ran the U.S. government following WW!! is beyond ludicrous. West is either a complete wack job, or she's just out to make a lot of money from her targeted naive audience, you know, the tin foil hat crowd.
        You like to hold to such a narrow definition of communism that it could never have happened anywhere.

        Nor am I sure where you got this particular theory that you then renounce. Is this how you wish to make arguments?

        I'm not sure whether you are wishing to protect pure Communist idealogy from weaker interpretations. Maybe you have another designation for people who love Communist ideology and seek positions in the government. I'm not sure how you are so smug in your perception of the world that you will slander without cause.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
          You like to hold to such a narrow definition of communism that it could never have happened anywhere.

          Nor am I sure where you got this particular theory that you then renounce. Is this how you wish to make arguments?

          I'm not sure whether you are wishing to protect pure Communist idealogy from weaker interpretations. Maybe you have another designation for people who love Communist ideology and seek positions in the government. I'm not sure how you are so smug in your perception of the world that you will slander without cause.
          The traitor you should be concerning yourself with mike, is the one presently in the White House.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            The traitor you should be concerning yourself with mike, is the one presently in the White House.
            I didn't mean to extend this discussion to include your Communist conspiracy theories. I would like to stick with the original topic.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              I've always considered neocons a totally different breed from actual constitutional conservatives. Like I view someone like Rand Paul as a true conservative with an ideology completely different from a Lindsey Graham, the latter of whom wouldn't hesitate to burn the constitution if it was necessary to give more leeway to the military and intelligence apparatus.
              The history is straightforward. The neocons, Trotskyites, ''''''ex-''''''leftists, gathered around William Buckley, declared themselves Real conservatives, appointed themselves gatekeepers, and then purged from the mainstream people who have been rightwing all along.

              Neocons seized control in this manner. Fast forward to the present, the neocons are busy ruining the country with endless wars, free trade, and massive immigration. The religious right and gun lovers are easily placated, and upstart movements like the Tea Party and Ron Paul's were successfully neutralised. (This is why Rand Paul didn't try too hard in 2016, he knew from first hand experience that he had no chance).

              And then, out of nowhere, with genius and ability, Trump seized control of the Republican Party, of the conservative movement. "Trump hijacked the conservative movement", whine the neocons who hijacked it. Loser Buckleyites like George Will and Juvenal cry, but Trump won and with massive popularity among the base has control until 2024.

              What next? There are still a lot of neocons out there, some openly against Trump, some pretending to be on his side (eg Ben Shapiro). Stay tuned...
              Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                The history is straightforward. The neocons, Trotskyites, ''''''ex-''''''leftists, gathered around William Buckley, declared themselves Real conservatives, appointed themselves gatekeepers, and then purged from the mainstream people who have been rightwing all along.

                Neocons seized control in this manner. Fast forward to the present, the neocons are busy ruining the country with endless wars, free trade, and massive immigration. The religious right and gun lovers are easily placated, and upstart movements like the Tea Party and Ron Paul's were successfully neutralised. (This is why Rand Paul didn't try too hard in 2016, he knew from first hand experience that he had no chance).

                And then, out of nowhere, with genius and ability, Trump seized control of the Republican Party, of the conservative movement. "Trump hijacked the conservative movement", whine the neocons who hijacked it. Loser Buckleyites like George Will and Juvenal cry, but Trump won and with massive popularity among the base has control until 2024.

                What next? There are still a lot of neocons out there, some openly against Trump, some pretending to be on his side (eg Ben Shapiro). Stay tuned...
                The Reagan Revolution is dead and gone. We have entered a "seventh party system", dividing up US history into eras based an parties' interactions, gives the Reagan era the sixth successive era. The Trump populism, or the divisions laid bare by Obama's presidency characterizes this seventh period.

                After 9-11, few conservatives were isolationists. The Dems were excoriated for being too soft, and patriotism was equated with support for the war, the neocon position of planting democracy on foreign soil.

                Buckley's gatekeeping consisted of excluding the overt racism of some Dixiecrats, the John Birch types, Randians, and anti-Semites. He wrote with from distinctly Christian viewpoint, but accepted atheists (and even populists). His emphasis on a Christian ethos anticipated the religious right a quarter century later.
                Last edited by simplicio; 01-27-2020, 04:30 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                  Buckley's gatekeeping consisted of excluding the overt racism of some Dixiecrats, the John Birch types, Randians, and anti-Semites.
                  Using 'racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!' to deplatform rightwing people? Sounds familiar. Why????

                  As I pointed out, the original neocons were leftists, Trotskyites.
                  Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                    Soviet tactics were effective enough to use classic military maneuvers, tactics, and strategy used by Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Patton, in other words, classic Clausewitz. And studied. Yes, much of the soviet military doctrine did depend on mass attack.
                    Nothing really to dispute here other than the fact the Russian military historically relied upon the harsh Russian winter, destroying resources an invading army could use, and retreat tactics in forcing their enemy to extend supply lines while shortening theres. By contrast the US has depended on the vast oceans and relative peaceful relationships with our neighbors, for our defense.

                    America's technological superioirity was always being leapfrogged by Soviet technology. Mig jets, tanks, APC, ships air defense, combat engineering etc. Always kept America scrambling to maintain superiority. In most categories, the soviets had numerical superiority, and parity on current generation weapon systems. Many Dems, Carter supporters, note that the Reagan build up was started in the seventies under Carter! The buildup for the war on terrorism also started under Clinton, the Army noted that the Humvee needed armor, budgets were not opened until after we took casualties after 9-11.
                    I’d have to disagree with you on this because the Soviets had to depend on stolen technology and a greater percentage of its national energy. For example, the MiG-15’s engine was a copy of a British engine that the British licensed to the Soviets to build, for non military purposes. The Soviets obviously ignored this part of the deal and the engine is what made the MiG-15 such a good fighter. Without this stolen tech, Soviet fighters would have remained behind American fighters. The story of the TU-4 is the same thing. With it being a reversed engineered copy of the B-29. While the US was not above stealing or borrowing tech, we also did a good deal of development ourselves. In many ways, the Soviets started with a gap in manufacturing and technology and ended up having to steal and borrow, to catch up. They did well in some areas, but not so great in others. Soviet computer technology lagged behind US computer technology, for example, and this is important since we have seen increases in computer reliance that the Soviets were not able to match.

                    The draw down after Vietnam, morale crises in the Navy, problems in Army, came to a head by late seventies. There have been several force restructurings since. It was the recognition that we could not maintain major military operations, only a decade or two since we moved into the Vietnam conflict. (Vietnam was a major engineering feat, creating infrastructure to support a modern military. ) Doctrine in Europe was to fall back to the Atlantic, wait for reinforcement and reserves to cross the ocean, then push the Soviets back to Fulda.
                    That may had been the plan, but after the fall of the USSR, we discovered that their military wasn’t as powerful or ready as we thought. Many of their tanks were much older models with many aircraft being much older models too. We also discovered that the theory of a huge Army wasn’t as practical as we thought. Only around 30% of the army was ready to go at a moments notice with the other 70% requiring 3 days to even weeks to be ready to go. The Soviet Air Force was in better shape and they had lots of Nukes for nuclear deterrent, but I doubt the Soviets could had pulled off a major invasion of Europe without breaking their own back, in the process.

                    The reserve components had deteriorated, Vietnam was fought with (almost) no reservists. Readiness dropped, and was not addressed in the Army until the nineties.
                    As I pointed out above, the Soviet military wasn’t in much better shape.

                    Yes the American economy was much stronger. But the fact remains that the soviet economy supported a major military to compete with the US.
                    By soaking up a greater percentage of its GDP. During the Cold War, US GDP spending went to a high of 12%, but tended to hover around 4-6%. The USSR had a high of 30% and hovered around 8-10%. Sure they were able to mostly keep up, but only by dedicating double the GDP of the US to do so.

                    Pacific battles were set piece battles, we poured men into the meat grinder, each island did not allow maneuver of large units or economy of force. It was massed small units, often in jungles, each battle a war of attrition.
                    Yes and no because the US also bypassed islands, cutting them off from support too and used a superior Navy and Air Force to control the air and sea. The US also operated our military differently, we tended to encourage unit level engagement, used our subs in economic warfare, and continued to innovate throughout the war. Attrition was part of the method, but that was because we tended to apply overwhelming force and our greater supplies to engagements.

                    Your view underestimates the communists and their economy. And it shows the difficulty in assessing readiness. One example is the question if our military could maintain operations in a conventional war.
                    And I think you overestimate the Soviet military. I don’t think they could have launched a full scale invasion of Europe and likely would have broke their back trying. They had a mix of older and new equipment, with most of it being older, roughly 30% of units ready for war, and quite a bit of equipment in disrepair. Not counting the fact they had fewer allies and less reliable ones. I don’t think they could have prevailed and likely would have lost an open war and needed their nukes as a deterrent.
                    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-27-2020, 01:33 PM.
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                      Using 'racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!' to deplatform rightwing people? Sounds familiar. Why????

                      As I pointed out, the original neocons were leftists, Trotskyites.
                      Apparently Buckley did not want his platform to become a haven for klan types, recognizing that conservatism was not built on racism, and racism not built conservatism, causing a rift between neocons and paleocons

                      Yes many former leftists did become conservatives (probably after being mugged), and chose an ideology based on fierce anticommunism, free enterprise, accused the Kremlin of exporting totalitarianism, and condemned the Kremlin as a bastion if atheism, immorality, and state socialism. And they demanded unwavering aid to Israel.

                      Twenty years ago, neocons dominated the conservative movement, GW Bush, like Reagan, drew on neocons for his administration. Paleocons have considerable influence in this administration, Steve Bannon held a key position for a spell.

                      But I do not know what to make of the shift within conservatism. Evangelicals are a key demographic, but the paleocons are not staunchly pro Israel. Is it a shift within evangelicalism on Israel? A turn to isolationism?

                      is the problem with neoconservatism too many former leftist/commies, or too many Jews?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        Nothing really to dispute here other than the fact the Russian military historically relied upon the harsh Russian winter, destroying resources an invading army could use, and retreat tactics in forcing their enemy to extend supply lines while shortening theres. By contrast the US has depended on the vast oceans and relative peaceful relationships with our neighbors, for our defense.



                        IÂ’d have to disagree with you on this because the Soviets had to depend on stolen technology and a greater percentage of its national energy. For example, the MiG-15Â’s engine was a copy of a British engine that the British licensed to the Soviets to build, for non military purposes. The Soviets obviously ignored this part of the deal and the engine is what made the MiG-15 such a good fighter. Without this stolen tech, Soviet fighters would have remained behind American fighters. The story of the TU-4 is the same thing. With it being a reversed engineered copy of the B-29. While the US was not above stealing or borrowing tech, we also did a good deal of development ourselves. In many ways, the Soviets started with a gap in manufacturing and technology and ended up having to steal and borrow, to catch up. They did well in some areas, but not so great in others. Soviet computer technology lagged behind US computer technology, for example, and this is important since we have seen increases in computer reliance that the Soviets were not able to match.



                        That may had been the plan, but after the fall of the USSR, we discovered that their military wasnÂ’t as powerful or ready as we thought. Many of their tanks were much older models with many aircraft being much older models too. We also discovered that the theory of a huge Army wasnÂ’t as practical as we thought. Only around 30% of the army was ready to go at a moments notice with the other 70% requiring 3 days to even weeks to be ready to go. The Soviet Air Force was in better shape and they had lots of Nukes for nuclear deterrent, but I doubt the Soviets could had pulled off a major invasion of Europe without breaking their own back, in the process.



                        As I pointed out above, the Soviet military wasnÂ’t in much better shape.



                        By soaking up a greater percentage of its GDP. During the Cold War, US GDP spending went to a high of 12%, but tended to hover around 4-6%. The USSR had a high of 30% and hovered around 8-10%. Sure they were able to mostly keep up, but only by dedicating double the GDP of the US to do so.



                        Yes and no because the US also bypassed islands, cutting them off from support too and used a superior Navy and Air Force to control the air and sea. The US also operated our military differently, we tended to encourage unit level engagement, used our subs in economic warfare, and continued to innovate throughout the war. Attrition was part of the method, but that was because we tended to apply overwhelming force and our greater supplies to engagements.



                        And I think you overestimate the Soviet military. I donÂ’t think they could have launched a full scale invasion of Europe and likely would have broke their back trying. They had a mix of older and new equipment, with most of it being older, roughly 30% of units ready for war, and quite a bit of equipment in disrepair. Not counting the fact they had fewer allies and less reliable ones. I donÂ’t think they could have prevailed and likely would have lost an open war and needed their nukes as a deterrent.
                        How much of our technology is native to us? The main battle tank, m1Abrams, uses armor developed by Brits, the bridging equipment of the 80s was from a variety of countries. We may not have stolen the technology, but acquired it from outside. Our industrial capacity is thin enough that the Lima tank factory has been kept operating needlessly, yet we have the most powerful military in history.

                        We defeated Japan using ground tactics quite similar to the very tactics which are seen as a weakness of the Soviets. The defeats of the German Army used planning from a capable general staff. It did not depend solely on human waves. The 80s saw the US revive its military while Soviet capability eroded, the breadlines at home (and unrest) limited Party ambitions.

                        A military needs to be powerful enough to meet its goals. I don't think the Russians could go toe to toe with us in a major, conventional war. But they were strong enough to leave the United States impotent to prevent Russian hegemony in Ukraine. Any other country in Europe would have been brought to heal if they annexed a neighbor's territory. Putin prevailed.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                          How much of our technology is native to us? The main battle tank, m1Abrams, uses armor developed by Brits, the bridging equipment of the 80s was from a variety of countries. We may not have stolen the technology, but acquired it from outside. Our industrial capacity is thin enough that the Lima tank factory has been kept operating needlessly, yet we have the most powerful military in history.
                          The Brits have always been pretty good at armor development. As I said, there’s good things about having more dependable allies, but the Soviets and Chinese are really the ones that have/are playing catch up. The Chinese are very busy with stealing US companies trade secrets right this very minute.

                          We defeated Japan using ground tactics quite similar to the very tactics which are seen as a weakness of the Soviets. The defeats of the German Army used planning from a capable general staff. It did not depend solely on human waves. The 80s saw the US revive its military while Soviet capability eroded, the breadlines at home (and unrest) limited Party ambitions.
                          I’d disagree because out tactics in the pacific war involved first seeking air and sea dominates, picking what islands to invade and what ones to blockade, than launching an invasion of the ones important enough to invade. The Soviet surface Navy always lagged behind the west, its amphibious abilities were a good deal behind, and it’s naval aviation wasn’t nearly big enough to deal with the Japanese. There’s a reason the Soviets waited till after Nazi Germany’s defeat and Japan’s near defeat before joining the pacific war. The Soviet military was much better in air and land, than it was on water.

                          A military needs to be powerful enough to meet its goals. I don't think the Russians could go toe to toe with us in a major, conventional war. But they were strong enough to leave the United States impotent to prevent Russian hegemony in Ukraine. Any other country in Europe would have been brought to heal if they annexed a neighbor's territory. Putin prevailed.
                          The UK and France are pretty powerful nations too, with a war between either two being a major war. War depends as much as the will to fight it as it does the ability. Is Ukraine worth getting into a war over? The short answer is, no. Now would they pull this trick with a more important ally, like Japan or Poland? The truth is major powers are well aware that a major, open war, would likely lead to a nuclear exchange and only crazy people want that. Thus the proxy war, support the enemies of your enemies, that way, it doesn’t become a nuclear war. We have given Ukraine military aid, but no direct support, why?
                          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 01-28-2020, 06:39 AM.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                            Buckley and Trotskyites called themselves 'neocons' and used 'racist!!!!!!!!!!' to purge real conservatives
                            Fixed.

                            is the problem with neoconservatism too many former leftist/commies, or too many Jews?
                            Demi is pleased to see progress on your QCD (Questionmark Compulsive Disorder). However, there is a new worry about this Zionism derailing.

                            Relax, demi is only smashing some of your golden calves.
                            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              The Brits have always been pretty good at armor development. As I said, thereÂ’s good things about having more dependable allies, but the Soviets and Chinese are really the ones that have/are playing catch up. The Chinese are very busy with stealing US companies trade secrets right this very minute.



                              IÂ’d disagree because out tactics in the pacific war involved first seeking air and sea dominates, picking what islands to invade and what ones to blockade, than launching an invasion of the ones important enough to invade. The Soviet surface Navy always lagged behind the west, its amphibious abilities were a good deal behind, and itÂ’s naval aviation wasnÂ’t nearly big enough to deal with the Japanese. ThereÂ’s a reason the Soviets waited till after Nazi GermanyÂ’s defeat and JapanÂ’s near defeat before joining the pacific war. The Soviet military was much better in air and land, than it was on water.



                              The UK and France are pretty powerful nations too, with a war between either two being a major war. War depends as much as the will to fight it as it does the ability. Is Ukraine worth getting into a war over? The short answer is, no. Now would they pull this trick with a more important ally, like Japan or Poland? The truth is major powers are well aware that a major, open war, would likely lead to a nuclear exchange and only crazy people want that. Thus the proxy war, support the enemies of your enemies, that way, it doesnÂ’t become a nuclear war. We have given Ukraine military aid, but no direct support, why?
                              Your description of the island hopping campaign does parallel the Soviet tactics of WWII and the Cold War. There was little of the grand tactical maenuvers on the islands that we saw in North Africa or in Europe. The Soviets did not apply force haphazardly, neither did MacArthur and the navy. But the victories at Stalingrad, and Byelorussia a year later, used surprisingly agile techniques, worthy of a Lee! Those two German defeats took a half million Axis soldiers away.

                              Is "getting into a war over Ukraine" the only alternative option on Ukraine? If Russian expands, spreading hegemony and its territorial ambitions, Ukraine will be viewed as an example of acquiescing to Russian ambition. Russian power is sufficient to make a war at Russia's door step unpalatable!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                                Fixed.



                                Demi is pleased to see progress on your QCD (Questionmark Compulsive Disorder). However, there is a new worry about this Zionism derailing.

                                Relax, demi is only smashing some of your golden calves.
                                Golden calves like objecting to antisemitic dog whistles of Trotskyite infiltration? Heaven forbid that Christians on a Christian discussion board would find a problem with such things, things with such a noble pedigree in the body politic.

                                Like I asked before, I wonder if the rejection of neoconservatism, the ascendancy paleoconservatism, and growing isolationism will affect American Christians' stand on Israel.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X