Hubcapped

this is why i pick at you bru. You are either incredibly stupid (which i dont think so) or you are knowingly trolling, which should be beneath a man who has seemingly walked this earth long enough to dispense with the bullsh1t.

the norman conquest of Britain is the VERY thing that post ww2 structure has successfully tempered. One nation state invading another…..have there been minor events since ww2? If course, no one is saying its been perfect, but as a whole, in a “relative sense”, the world has had less major conflict.

are you really trying to say that there has been the same amount of warfare across the globe post ww2 as prior? What an insanely uneducated position to have. that is the only position ive staked my flag on this round after you argued with max about it.

dude, you can say sh1ts starting to go sideways and id agree with you, but to even remotely attempt to say that pre ww2 was/is the same as post ww2 is just ridiculous.

The current conflict is the start of a shift that myself nor the entire EU leadership want to allow (of course with you i have to have a disclaimer that orban and his like are outliers, even though adults tracking the conversation would already know that).

wheres the link to germanys 2024 announced ukraine allocation? Oh yeah, its not part of your agenda. If you want to sit here cuttin an pastin for the 3 people that read this thread…..be fair in your “reporting”…..or get ready to catch some sh1t.

Hubcapped

I honestly think the dude doesn’t even know what he is arguing about anymore. Hes slipped sideways, evading so many direct questions, that hes mired in contention and just wants to get endorphins mindlessly pushing the newsmax type agenda.

Excargodog

Refusing to respond to strawman questions by someone who constantly redefines his claims as assertion after assertion of his is proven wrong is not the same as losing focus. That's debate 101. And when that individual ups the ante with insults, ad hominem attacks, and demeaning speech, they don't deserve to be responded to.

As for a "news max type agenda" I've SOURCED my facts (and the subjective opinion pieces I have quoted from - not all of which represent my opinion but whose arguments I still believed warrant consideration) as opposed to you pulling assertions out of your@$$ (I recall you insisting that the Russians had no EW capability capable of interfering with JDAMS or other GPS or remotely guided activity despite DOD documentation (and Ukrainian confirmation) that such was indeed the case.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-poland-kaliningrad-gps-jammer-1861842

Yet you think you can somehow count coup because you made a ridiculous unsourced and unproven (and likely unprovable) assertion that the last generation the world has been more peaceful than EVER BEFORE IN THE RECORDED HISTORY OF MANKIND which you pulled out of your butt without any source whatsoever? Now THAT truly IS amusing.

Lowslung

Dude, it’s even in tbe dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pax%20Americana

Have there been wars since WWII? Yep, lots of ‘em. Have they been as destructive as the two world wars that took place as the great powers finished industrialization? Nope. That’s because the people who fought & created policy during WWII saw just how destructive unrestricted total war is, to include the prospect of nuclear annihilation. They knew first hand that open conflict between great powers could, and likely would mean the end of human civilization. They created policies, treaties, and infrastructure to prevent that particular eventuality. Today, many around the world appear ready to tear down those safeguards. That is what you’re advocating. I’m not ok with that. Nobody should be ok with that. We are far closer to cooking each other than anyone wants to admit or consider (thin veneer of civilization & all that). Would you rather live in a world without American leadership? Is Chinese leadership better? ‘Cause they’re signaling that they’d like to take the baton. No thanks. Russian leadership? Ha! German, French, British? Good luck with that. No, I’d like my country (warts and all) to continue to lead the world order, thank you very much.

Excargodog

Dude, the guy's assertion was NOT that there has been a Pax Americana inheriting the previous Pax Britannia. It was that the last generation (which he arbitrarily assigned as 70 years) had seen less 'world' wars, than any 70 years IN RECORDED HISTORY. Now I wasn't personally around for ALL of recorded history and know for sure that I missed the entirety of the Pax Romanum, but as I said, this was an assertion he pulled out of his @$$ that is essentially unknowable. Then he continually redefined what the definition of 'world war' was down to and including the Norman Conquest of Britain.

So I ask you (since you don't have a tendency to pull pseudo-facts out of your posterior) do you truly believe the last 70 years have been the most peaceful 70 years in the last SEVEN THOUSAND because THAT was the assertion.

And even considering the rather Eurocentric fact that the last 70 years were more peaceful IN EUROPE, establishing causality with NATO is not a given. Both of the World Wars preceding this interval involved the Imperial ambitions of Germany.

https://online.norwich.edu/six-cause...the%20monarchy.

One could just as easily argue that it was the imperial ambitions of Germany that caused both WWI and WWII and that it was the partition of Germany from 1944 to until 1990 that kept the peace in Europe. Or that the breakup of the British, French, and German Empires and the release of their colonies in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa led to that result. It's an 'n of one' statistical case and can never be unproven. Do I personally think NATO helped stabilize Europe? I hope so, I was part of the effort. Can I prove it did? Nope, and neither can you.

But I can say unequivocally that our NATO allies severely cut back their defense capabilities after the demise of the USSR (Hell, they admit it themselves) which dramatically lessened the deterrent effect of NATO in Europe for conventional warfare defense. In fairness, we did too, but not to the extent that they did. Did that encourage Russian aggression in Georgia and Crimea? I imagine it did, but I can't prove that either. Still, they at least are starting to believe it and if they actually go through with increasing their own military capabilities (which they talked about doing after the carnage in Yugoslavia but never funded) I would think that a plus because I've exercised with some of our NATO allies and their capabilities were somewhat pathetic.

I fear you have fallen into the Sophist trap that Hub set for me. The question involved 7000 years of history, not the IMMEDIATE PRE-WWII ERA.

As for your claim of the superiority of American leadership ... two words: Donald Trump. Worse yet, it's looking increasingly like each side will be voting for their favorite buffoon in 2024. And I see no plans by either side to even bring our defense industrial base up to where it was in 1990. We are IN MY OPINION - going to be overcommitted and vulnerable with penny-packet size deployments currently in over 750 overseas bases that risk getting defeated in detail by locals as soon as we are seriously engaged anywhere else.

https://www.thesoldiersproject.org/h...-in-the-world/

We are - to put it bluntly - as overextended as the Russians were in the first months after their invasion of Ukraine and like them if we encounter any unexpected resistance we are either going to have to pull back many of those troops or see them over run.

If you are going to play policeman to the world you have to fund playing policeman to the world and staff playing policeman to the world and maintain the defense industrial base that is sufficient to play policeman to the world and we have done none of those.

Again, my opinion.

Hubcapped

Are you so incredibly dense as to not understand that the gist of the statement is that humans have been fighting since the dawn of time?

nation states have been trying to take each others resources since forever….rule of the strong…who has the most spears….

the norman conquest is no different…it is an example of unchecked aggression where one group takes the resources of another. You throw out idiotic statements like “only 8000 troops” etc……8000 dudes in armor in the 1000s is the equivalent of 500 f-22s and 50,000 m1a2s. Its a nations states full effort to conquer another…….give me a break vlad, you sound ridiculous. Either an uneducated fool or a pathetic boomer troll. Take your pick


what was Germany’s 2024 ukraine budget announcement??

knew you wouldnt answer that one lol. Oh man i love your vadnick copium. It smells so good

Excargodog

Your knowledge of history is pathetic. Who were the Normans? From Encyclopedia Britannia:

The Vikings pretty much were a function of Scandinavian culture of the time. Scandinavia has a deficiency of arable land - even defining 'arable' as enough soil to grow lichen to feed your goats even now. In the preindustrial age it was even worse.

Inheritance laws basically gave all land to the firstborn son. Daughters got married off to husbands that would support them. But in the pre birth control era that left plenty of n+1 sons with no visible means of support. Conditions were so $hitty a thousand years ago that rowing across the frigging North Atlantic to a volcanic island named Ice-land was a viable option. For most n+1 sons, not having the knowledge or technical skill to develop the North Sea oil resources, best option was to go become a Viking.

So you had a group of originally Nordic tribes that had gathered in France decide to take over an area of Britain. This was scarcely a world war and certainly not unprecedented. The Vikings had been raiding Scotland, Britain, and Ireland for centuries, the first recorded attack in 793.

https://www.history.org.uk/primary/r...-brief-history

Many historians believe that defense against the Vikings was the key enabler for the Angles and Saxons and Celts and Jutes and Frisians and the other Germanic tribes who had themselves migrated to Britain in the fifth century to set aside their own fights and form a more or less unified kingdom.

In any event, about 4000 Normans took on about 4000 Anglo-Saxons at Hastings after the death of Edward the Confessor without heir to put their Duke of Normandy on the throne rather than the recently enthroned Anglo-Saxon king. While important to the history of England, this was certainly no "world war" and most definitely not any 500 F-22s or 50,000 M1s.

The Anglo Saxons were in fact winning until the Normans started to either retreat or at least feint a retreat. Undisciplined troops broke their shield line to pursue, opening a space for the Normans to reverse course and advance through the Anglo-Saxon front lines. After that the Anglo-Saxon commander caught an arrow in the eye and the general SNAFU of war became FUBAR and despite having the home advantage, the Anglo-saxons lost.

At the time the Anglo-Saxon population was near 2 million so if any substantial number of these people (mostly serfs little more than slaves) had actually given a damn who ruled them they could have made short work of the already chewed up Norman Army.

But as long as we are talking ancient history, the Pax Romana endured for 200 years - almost triple the time you assert NATO has deterred 'world wars' so you are actually wrong in any event with your original assertion, even after quibbling incessantly and equating "dudes in armor" (and most weren't) to 500 F-22s.

(You are aware - I hope - that 500 F-22s have never existed? Only 195 were ever built including preproduction testing models. Of course, you knew all that since you know everything...)

Excargodog

They've made a number of them. Which one are you taking about?

This Rand reference from yesterday gives an analysis of the current state of affairs:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary...fence-and.html

The Germans talk a good fight but don't necessarily deliver.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/w...ot-stalls.html


Here is yet another analysis:

https://ibb.co/dGXfPrf][/url[/url]]

Time will tell I suppose, but anyone expecting that Germany gets to the NATO expected 2% OF GDP any time soon is letting their hope triumph over decades of experience.

Hubcapped

No way really? Theres only 195 f-22s? I didnt know that….the fact that you actually just let that comment leave your head and hit your keyboard, just summed up for me how incredibly dense you are. Im not joking, you are literally too dumb to understand whats going on when people talk.

With that said, i cannot tell you how much joy you bring me when i imagine your chubby little soft fingers furiously regurgitating wiki trying to make a point that completely misses the whole premise. at this juncture i kind of just feeling sorry for you.

youre right man, the world was exactly the same then. There were plenty of checks on aggression. People weren’t constantly invading each other at all. Everyone was happy because the mercians and northumbrians paid their 2%. The danes were gentle seafaring traders not destroying lives with unfettered aggression.

france spain and england didnt fight every 2 years, and the romans!… They brought love and happiness to all their neighbors! Wine and games for all. However , The best were the mongols, they were so nice running around helping everyone learn how to ride horses and shoot arrows. I mean really, ever since the bronze age, things have been just peachy for the average joe. It wasnt until post ww2 that things got bad. Goddam democrats took charge and sh1ts going to hell in a hand basket!

keep cutin and pastin buddy! Or better yet, plagiarizing wiki, Youll get em any second! Tucker and med will be so happy with your efforts.


oh man……thanks for the chuckle dude, you never fail to deliver, ill give you that. But in all seriousness, with that f22 remark, im realizing the limit of your ability to understand basic concepts. No wonder propaganda has got you hook line and sinker. Stay safe cargo, try not to be too fearful of the world before you die, we only live once

Hubcapped

I just had an epiphany, and i would like to apologize to the 2 other folks in this thread. I went back and tried to delete my childish message but the time limit hit. Its no fun when the intended recipient is not capable of understanding. It just becomes unfair and not honorable to rip into them.

the fact that this human actually put pen to paper correcting me about production model raptors really just hit me. He is incapable of understanding. It kind of just took the wind out of my sails tbh. I dont think he is able to understand max’s point, nor in hindsight, the myriad of other points many folks have made here. Of course it is now glaringly obvious why there is this pattern of obtuse, obsessive, and incessant posting of other peoples ideas and propaganda.

cargo will of course do his thing, but to anyone that actually read the above post, I realize that it’s inappropriate and crude to pick on someone like this. I should have known better a long time ago, the signs were there, but it really just hit me now with the f-22 remark. For me, Its just not fun to banter with someone who does not possess the horsepower to understand nuance, rather its just being a bully. I didnt see it until now.

cargo im sorry for picking on you for 12 months. It was inappropriate and rude. Ill back off and try to be civil