You think Ukraine is joke?

[Fin Fang Foom]

He went nowhere because he didn't appear to know what he was doing.

Stockdale was not informed that he would be participating in the October 13 vice-presidential debate held in Atlanta, Georgia, until a week before the event. He had no formal preparation for the debate, unlike his opponents Al Gore and Dan Quayle, and did not discuss any political issues with Perot beforehand.[15]

Stockdale notably opened the debate by saying, "Who am I? Why am I here?", when responding to a request for an opening statement from debate moderator, Hal Bruno, the political director of ABC News.[16] Bruno had asked Stockdale, "Admiral Stockdale, your opening statement, please, sir?", leading to the now famous response.[17] Initially, the rhetorical questions drew applause from the audience, seeming to be a good-natured acknowledgment of his relatively unknown status and lack of traditional qualifications.

However, his unfocused style for the rest of the debate (including asking the moderator to repeat one question because he didn't have his hearing aid turned on) made him appear confused and almost disoriented. An unflattering recreation of the moment on Saturday Night Live later that week, with Phil Hartman as Stockdale, cemented a public perception of Stockdale as slow-witted. He was also often parodied for his repeated use of the term "gridlock" to describe slow governmental policy.

As his introduction to the large segment of American voters who had not previously heard of him, the debate was disastrous for Stockdale. He was portrayed in the media as elderly and confused, and his reputation never recovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_St ... _candidacy

You think that Perot didn't win because of Stockdale?

[GinSlinger]

ETA: It's your belief that MacArthur was only where he was because he was acting like he belonged there and that he knew what he was doing?

[Fin Fang Foom]

ETA: It's your belief that MacArthur was only where he was because he was acting like he belonged there and that he knew what he was doing?

He was not a particularly good general in WWII, and he should have been shot in Korea.

[GinSlinger]

ETA: It's your belief that MacArthur was only where he was because he was acting like he belonged there and that he knew what he was doing?

He was not a particularly good general in WWII, and he should have been shot in Korea.

Doesn't really answer the question.

[GinSlinger]

To be explicit: MacArthur knew exactly how to play the game of Army, DC, and Pilipino politics to rise to the highest level. He also knew how to play the public to hide the fact that he had risen beyond his potential (as far as I understand it, his main failure was an inability to listen to his subordinates, stemming from egomania, but he did very well as an administrator off the battlefield).

So, no, he didn't get to become Marshall of the Philippines by just looking like he knew what he was doing.

Stockdale, as tr0g points out, was capable (it would appear in retrospect) of fulfilling a rather popular role in politics--that of a moderate Republican meets hawkish Democrat with both populist and technocratic elements--but was stymied by appearing in a debate where (due to the Perot campaign's bad planning, etc.) he acted neither like he belonged there nor knew what he was doing.

[Fin Fang Foom]

So, Douglas MacArthur was a bad general who was good at being an proconsular administrator (so, not as a general) capable of propaganda such that he was extremely popular, i.e. he looked and acted like he belonged there. Getting politicians to seems to be one of the core competencies of "looking like you belong there," at least at high levels. More specifically to his generalship, his plan of defense of the Philippines was incompetent, and he ignored all sorts of warnings in Korea that indicated that the Chinese were going to invade, which might have never happened if he had not antagonized them. If he had been fired a few months before, North Korea might have only existed as a tiny rump state in the north of the Korean peninsula.

Stockdale, as tr0g points out, was capable (it would appear in retrospect) of fulfilling a rather popular role in politics--that of a moderate Republican meets hawkish Democrat with both populist and technocratic elements--but was stymied by appearing in a debate where (due to the Perot campaign's bad planning, etc.) he acted neither like he belonged there nor knew what he was doing.

So are you suggesting that Stockdale would have been good at this role? The role you're describing for him kind of solely exists as "looking like you belong there," also, what in the world did it have to do with anything in the first place?

1. Taktix, et al. Talking about "Russian paramilitary."
2. AR talking about how far one can get by looking like you belong there. This is from a veteran cynical about the military which constituted most of his professional life, so I am taking him to allude to lance corporals to generals in the modern military.
3. FFF: reference to perhaps the most successful case of "looking like you belong there."
4. Ginslinger: ???: Stockdale.
5. Etc.

[GinSlinger]

I believe you have a different criteria for promotion than either I or the Army. Neither one of us are capable of promoting individuals based on knowledge of their future successes or failures. Definitely have a hard time seeing how MacArthur's production in Korea indicated he would be a poor choice for superintendent of the USMA or Chief of Staff of the Army.

Regardless, I assumed you were making a joking reference to MacArthur, and so followed with a joking reference of my own. Seems as though, while all jokes contain a kernel of truth, you intended yours to be 100% (i. e. not a joke).

[Fin Fang Foom]

Ukrainian special forces prepare to begin operations in Eastern Ukraine.

[Kolohe]

Rushin' to the altar in Donetsk.

[Hugh Akston]

America must act now because this is the most serious international crisis since the last international crisis that America must act now on.

Finally, if Russians perceive their punishment is inflicted by others, it is a powerful stimulant to national consolidation and a spur to inflict unimaginable punishment on others. Putin is an archetypal traditional Russian leader who aspires to making a historical imprint like Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. This is a bloody serious game he is playing, cynical and determined beyond what flabby American and European strategic thinking can or wants to comprehend.

[Kolohe]

That seemed like pretty sober analysis to me.

[Warren]

America must act now because this is the most serious international crisis since the last international crisis that America must act now on.

Finally, if Russians perceive their punishment is inflicted by others, it is a powerful stimulant to national consolidation and a spur to inflict unimaginable punishment on others. Putin is an archetypal traditional Russian leader who aspires to making a historical imprint like Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. This is a bloody serious game he is playing, cynical and determined beyond what flabby American and European strategic thinking can or wants to comprehend.

Actual headline

Act now, or face war in Ukraine

So let me get this straight. Either we get involved in the Ukraine or they'll have the war without us? Hmm, let me mull that one... Yeah the 'sit on our ass and play x-box' option still looks best.

That seemed like pretty sober analysis to me.

Is this thing on? *bangs side of sarcas-o-meter*

[Hugh Akston]

I have a hard time considering an analysis sober when it is predicated on arguments of national character and unironically invokes comparisons to Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. He refers to a Russia-Ukraine war as a "potential cataclysm" and concludes by saying that his solution is the only one.

[Kolohe]

He also said that going in hot and heavy against Russia, even if the only weapon was sanctions, was a mistake and feeds into russia ' s shoulder chip. The article advocates de escalation and internationalization, which is probably pollyannish and infeasible, but not inherently stupid. As someone with an increasingly isolationist bent I'd like to do nothing at all with the situation (except for maintaining the notice to airmen to drive around) but if we were to do something, I'd say do it per the author's specs (but not the headline writers)

[Painboy]

Come on, the article specifically uses the term de-escalate several times. He is saying it's important that we get the sides talking instead of arming up. Yes he shows a little too much optimism about the effectiveness of UN peacekeepers but that's par for the course with most diplomacy these days. Nowhere is the author clambering for real military intervention. He is asking something be done before it goes hot.This is exactly what the US diplomacy should be doing. Talking things out before people start shooting each other. Even if the whole thing turns into a bureaucratic mess that's still better than a war.

I have a hard time considering an analysis sober when it is predicated on arguments of national character and unironically invokes comparisons to Stalin and Ivan the Terrible. He refers to a Russia-Ukraine war as a "potential cataclysm" and concludes by saying that his solution is the only one.

I believe, the reference to Ivan and Stalin were about how Putin views himself and not a comparison of actual scale. He is saying these kind of power moves often result in the Russian people suffering far more than any gains promised by their leaders. He even points out how ineffective sanctions are as it just plays into the Putin's hand by inflicting suffering on the Russian populace who will blame the west and not Putin's actions.

[Warren]

Talk of intervening to de-escalate reminds me of candidate Obama talking about doing away with partisan division. You stick your toe in there, you'd best be suited up and prepared to get wet.

[Eric the .5b]

Talk of intervening to de-escalate reminds me of candidate Obama talking about doing away with partisan division. You stick your toe in there, you'd best be suited up and prepared to get wet.

Team Warren. The only thing worse than dumbass militarism is dumbass fighting for peace. It just means actual finding, when it happens, comes as a shock.

[Aresen]

Talk of intervening to de-escalate reminds me of candidate Obama talking about doing away with partisan division. You stick your toe in there, you'd best be suited up and prepared to get wet.

Team Warren. The only thing worse than dumbass militarism is dumbass fighting for peace. It just means actual finding, when it happens, comes as a shock.

Pretty well this. Although I would not be opposed to issuing hackers letters of marque to go after the bank accounts of Putin and his friends.

[JD]

This is kind of crazy: people in the Ukraine are digging WWII-era weaponry out of storage and even raiding military museums for half-functional tanks, which they're getting running again.



The guy in the foreground has an SKS, and the really long rifle is (I think) a PTRS, an anti-tank weapon that hasn't been manufactured since 1945. It's no joke, though; that thing's got about twice the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG...

[tr0g]

This is kind of crazy: people in the Ukraine are digging WWII-era weaponry out of storage and even raiding military museums for half-functional tanks, which they're getting running again.



The guy in the foreground has an SKS, and the really long rifle is (I think) a PTRS, an anti-tank weapon that hasn't been manufactured since 1945. It's no joke, though; that thing's got about twice the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG...

I was gonna ask where they were getting ammo, but then I see it uses the Soviet 14.5mm. Yeah, that round's a hoss. I wouldn't want to fire that from the shoulder. That thing has to kick like nobody's business.

[Dangerman]

Somebody airdrop those guys some ear protection!

[Taktix®]

So this asshole says we should be arming Ukraine: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ADTo8vD_qB

We only spent the last 60 years avoiding a war with Russia, but you know what? Fuck it, let's start a war over the fucking Ukraine.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

[Andrew]

So this asshole says we should be arming Ukraine: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ADTo8vD_qB

We only spent the last 60 years avoiding a war with Russia, but you know what? Fuck it, let's start a war over the fucking Ukraine.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

War boners are a hell of a drug.

[Kolohe]

So this asshole says we should be arming Ukraine: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ADTo8vD_qB

We only spent the last 60 years avoiding a war with Russia, but you know what? Fuck it, let's start a war over the fucking Ukraine.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

You mean like (edit: someone on the the staff of)the US Secretary of State did, some months ago?

[Hugh Akston]

So this asshole says we should be arming Ukraine: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ADTo8vD_qB

We only spent the last 60 years avoiding a war with Russia, but you know what? Fuck it, let's start a war over the fucking Ukraine.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

You mean like (edit: someone on the the staff of)the US Secretary of State did, some months ago?

Show me a Secretary of State that wasn't a) an asshole, and b) hefting around a massive warboner at all times.