Micah Hyde ... tip of the hat in the time of tragedy

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,218
1,077
113
Great job, Micah.

Now when will the guns-for-all crowd stop with the thoughts and prayers BS and tell their gun-totin' friends in Congress to do something about this national embarrassment and ongoing national tragedy?

BTW: Just for the record, the second amendment, which I suggest fewer than one in 50 could cite correctly, says this: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And what does that really mean? The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that could counteract a tyrannical federal government.

Madison and the rest of the founders clearly had no intention for the NRA to run the country. The intent was based on the experience of the Revolution. It's not 1791 anymore. If Madison and friends simply wanted Americans to have guns, why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? But they didn't. They qualified the right, very clearly, because guns--in 1791--were significant weapons against a tyrannical government, so people should have access--as they did in the Revolution--to fight for their rights. So it should be obvious that what's been happening with guns in this country, for at least the last century, has little, if anything, to do with the intent of the second amendment. Stop the madness.
Yet another example of Alexander Pope's warning that, "a little learning is a dangerous thing", and proof that those most against "pieces" of the Bill of Rights don't understand that the WHOLE of it is sacrosanct.

Not to mention, of course, the complete lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and its place in our country, as well as the difference between "rights" and "laws".
 
  • Like
Reactions: EBL#7 and amahawk

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,218
1,077
113
Great job, Micah.

Now when will the guns-for-all crowd stop with the thoughts and prayers BS and tell their gun-totin' friends in Congress to do something about this national embarrassment and ongoing national tragedy?

BTW: Just for the record, the second amendment, which I suggest fewer than one in 50 could cite correctly, says this: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And what does that really mean? The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that could counteract a tyrannical federal government.

Madison and the rest of the founders clearly had no intention for the NRA to run the country. The intent was based on the experience of the Revolution. It's not 1791 anymore. If Madison and friends simply wanted Americans to have guns, why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? But they didn't. They qualified the right, very clearly, because guns--in 1791--were significant weapons against a tyrannical government, so people should have access--as they did in the Revolution--to fight for their rights. So it should be obvious that what's been happening with guns in this country, for at least the last century, has little, if anything, to do with the intent of the second amendment. Stop the madness.
BTW, when the First Amendment was crafted, we had no typewriters, computers, radio, TV or internet.
 

nbanflfactory

HR Heisman
Aug 22, 2021
6,497
6,288
113
, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
China will take care of all that in most of our lifetime.

Most choose to ignore it though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: EBL#7

nbanflfactory

HR Heisman
Aug 22, 2021
6,497
6,288
113
We sold our soul to Asia 40 years ago. The cat was let out of the bag and American people love their cheap stuff from China, except of course now when they can't get anything and they want to blame whatever administration is in charge at the moment. And good luck lining up at your house w/your handguns if the tanks want to actually come in. They're not going to do you much good. Well armed militia. Lol.
China, not Asia.

They've already got the people...20 more years they'll have the firepower!!
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,218
1,077
113
That's laughable - this isn't even a partisan issue.
There are policy makers on both sides of the aisles who advocate retaining a variety of job-types within the country.

Many others (on both sides) advocate for the advantages of globalization - and how it intertwines everybody's economies. It's harder to make war on one another when you depend on one another economically.
Unless one person or country wants it all for themselves...
 

hawkeyebob62

HR MVP
Jul 27, 2006
1,218
1,077
113
Define "it." I'm not certain that your comment makes any sense.
You closed with it being harder to make war on others when you are economically intertwined, but that's false.

One person or country decides that sharing is NOT caring, and proceed to take it all for themselves/their own interests.
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113
You closed with it being harder to make war on others when you are economically intertwined, but that's false.

One person or country decides that sharing is NOT caring, and proceed to take it all for themselves/their own interests.
I closed saying that some folks advocate for that approach. What you're suggesting is more an example of a tragedy of the commons.

A lot of ideologues tend to see the world from a zero-sum game perspective (non-cooperative game) ... however, lots of strategies in biology achieve robustness via regulated cooperation.

In the scenario you suggest, if one country decides that sharing is NOT caring ... then a regulatory measure ensures they get suitably rebuked.

Russia is learning that - given the resources/support that Ukraine has received.
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113
You closed with it being harder to make war on others when you are economically intertwined, but that's false.

One person or country decides that sharing is NOT caring, and proceed to take it all for themselves/their own interests.
Anyhow ... thanks for the clarification!
 

littlez

HR Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
7,455
6,206
113
Yet the political leadership seems to almost entirely agree that we need to become engaged in a war with Russia over a place of no consequence to the United States, in a conflict that started before CROATOAN was ever carved in North America. People need to pay attention to this, closely before we go down a catastrophic path.​
Who is saying we should go to war with Russia?
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113
Dick Durbin says we are at "virtual" war with Russia right now. Here's another permanent warrior. You seriously haven't seen the willingness to accept a war or the instigation of a war with Russia as a dominant political and media meme? Durban's boss seems pretty on board pushing for war; inventing a new "holocaust" in Ukraine, which is stupidly untrue. Or pushing other NATO countries to give Ukraine weapons, including fighter aircraft, an extremely destabilizing flash points when Polish fighters cross Ukranian boundaries. What is the logical ultimate objective of this inflammatory rhetoric if war is not?
How often have we (the USA) been in wars/conflicts where Russia (or the then Soviet Union) or China supplied our adversaries with weaponry/supplies? The point being - the interactions were clearly antagonistic with the other "powers" ... but we didn't consider ourselves "at war" with them.

Similarly, in this instance, the shoe is simply on the other foot ... but with an asterisk. I'd argue that nobody wants to be "at war" with the Russian people at all ... it's their dictatorial plutocracy that we take issue with. I'd venture to guess that Ukrainian leaders likely feel similarly.

The Russian state doesn't want their own people to be properly appraised with what is transpiring in Ukraine.

I think most rational actors acknowledge that the great majority of Russians are as good of people as any - thus, the international qualm is with Putin and his cronies ... not with the Russian people themselves.

While this whole scenario absolutely sucks for the Ukrainian people, because their land has transformed into a war-zone. However, ultimately, I view the conflict as being a war of attrition. Given that Ukrainians have a definite sense of identity (national identity) and will be well-enough supplied ... I think that it is more than possible for them to "hold out."
 

The Deplorable Sleeping Dog

HR Heisman
Gold Member
May 9, 2018
6,124
8,290
113
Polish fighters fly into Ukraine. Russians shoot one down. Of course, the Russians would rush to capture and Poles rush in to extract. There's a shootout. NATO's at war with Russia. Those are the consequences of this reckless rhetoric, all of which either ends in a NATO war with Russia or a complete waste of expensive material, unnecessarily higher military and civilian casualties and depravation of a potential ally in Chinese encirclement. So ideas like deploying our most advanced and powerful weapons, much less actual sailors, sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet.

That would be far beyond a proxy war, that would be directly engaging the Russians in what they consider to be a part of Russia. Even if it's just NATO or American ultra-high tech being used means a war with Russia because US/UK personnel would have to launch those missiles. That would trigger every nationalistic and paranoid reaction in Russia, yet this and other anti-Russian agitation is driving the Russian's further together as they rally around their flag.

The Russians are probably the most paranoid and nationalistic people on Earth, so probably unsound policy to encourage those characteristics if trying to deescalate the current war. However, maintaining the anti-Russian agitation will just push them to greater paranoia and nationalism. The paranoia stems from being so frequently invaded from the West and is perhaps more prudence than paranoia. Don't believe just the US propaganda, Putin has become more popular or at least Russians are supportive of the war.

Look at Russian reactions in previous wars, (e.g. the long term public remained supportive of Afghanistan for a decade) and considering the Russian attitude toward Ukraine (firmly part of Russia) you should definitely not assume a majority of Russians are unsupportive of this war. The collapse of the USSR left Russia a big black historical eye, did it not? For the first time since before Columbus Russia was not an expansive imperial power, considered among the few Great Powers. You don't think there is a large Russian population that feels easily dismissed by their foreign competitors and looking for a chance to get back in the Big Leagues? Like all those people that remember when a meeting between their leaders and POTUS was the biggest news story in the world. They lost a lot of shine in Afghanistan but that was now a long time ago and the 60s-80s holds some nostalgic value in Russia. The Russian military got a big black eye in Afghanistan and they too are looking for a big win.

Remember, hundreds of years of Russian history before the Euro migration to the Western Hemisphere began. They do not think like Americans.​

Similarly, in this instance, the shoe is simply on the other foot ... but with an asterisk. I'd argue that nobody wants to be "at war" with the Russian people at all ... it's their dictatorial plutocracy that we take issue with. I'd venture to guess that Ukrainian leaders likely feel similarly.

That's just US happy talk. Wars are always against the enemy people, at least as long as they support the "regime" with which we are at war. Wars don't actually end until one population finds the cost of supporting their government is greater than overthrowing it or, in small wars, when one side realizes it's time to cut a deal, having achieved enough objectives to consider it a win. We have forgotten what war is like because all our wars have been over there. Since WW2 we have seen smallish political wars with increasingly fewer casualties but also without victory-which really kind of makes the wars just murder fought about nothing. While we have not fought a big war in most of our lifetimes this Ukrainian thing is a very big war for Russia. I suspect their public is prepared for much higher casualties to reabsorb Ukraine back into greater Russia, where it was for four centuries, precisely how tens of millions of Russians aged about 40 and over remember Ukraine's relationship to the Mother Land and their Imperial glories over centuries.

The one thing that's been good news for us will ultimately undo Ukraine. It appears that Russian tactical and theater specific strategy hasn't really changed since WW2. The good news, if we get drawn into this centuries old conflict we will probably win, albeit like the UK after WW2, utterly exhausted. The bad news is the Russians will just bring up more men, more tanks, more big guns, missiles and rockets for their next offensive which will probably come south of Kyiv. Their infantry attacks will just be preceded by bigger and bigger barrages. The Ukrainians will simply run out of combat soldiers, and the ability to organize the ones that remain.

We need to remember what war fighting is all about and whose interests are at stake in fighting a war.​
 
Last edited:

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113
Polish fighters fly into Ukraine. Russians shoot one down. Of course, the Russians would rush to capture and Poles rush in to extract. There's a shootout. NATO's at war with Russia. Those are the consequences of this reckless rhetoric, all of which either ends in a NATO war with Russia or a complete waste of expensive material, unnecessarily higher military and civilian casualties and depravation of a potential ally in Chinese encirclement. So ideas like deploying our most advanced and powerful weapons, much less actual sailors, sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet.

That would be far beyond a proxy war, that would be directly engaging the Russians in what they consider to be a part of Russia. Even if it's just NATO or American ultra-high tech being used means a war with Russia because US/UK personnel would have to launch those missiles. That would trigger every nationalistic and paranoid reaction in Russia, yet this and other anti-Russian agitation is driving the Russian's further together as they rally around their flag.

The Russians are probably the most paranoid and nationalistic people on Earth, so probably unsound policy to encourage those characteristics if trying to deescalate the current war. However, maintaining the anti-Russian agitation will just push them to greater paranoia and nationalism. The paranoia stems from being so frequently invaded from the West and is perhaps more prudence than paranoia. Don't believe just the US propaganda, Putin has become more popular or at least Russians are supportive of the war.

Look at Russian reactions in previous wars, (e.g. the long term public remained supportive of Afghanistan for a decade) and considering the Russian attitude toward Ukraine (firmly part of Russia) you should definitely not assume a majority of Russians are unsupportive of this war. The collapse of the USSR left Russia a big black historical eye, did it not? For the first time since before Columbus Russia was not an expansive imperial power, considered among the few Great Powers. You don't think there is a large Russian population that feels easily dismissed by their foreign competitors and looking for a chance to get back in the Big Leagues? Like all those people that remember when a meeting between their leaders and POTUS was the biggest news story in the world. They lost a lot of shine in Afghanistan but that was now a long time ago and the 60s-80s holds some nostalgic value in Russia. The Russian military got a big black eye in Afghanistan and they too are looking for a big win.

Remember, hundreds of years of Russian history before the Euro migration to the Western Hemisphere began. They do not think like Americans.



That's just US happy talk. Wars are always against the enemy people, at least as long as they support the "regime" with which we are at war. Wars don't actually end until one population finds the cost of supporting their government is greater than overthrowing it or, in small wars, when one side realizes it's time to cut a deal, having achieved enough objectives to consider it a win. We have forgotten what war is like because all our wars have been over there. Since WW2 we have seen smallish political wars with increasingly fewer casualties but also without victory-which really kind of makes the wars just murder fought about nothing. While we have not fought a big war in most of our lifetimes this Ukrainian thing is a very big war for Russia. I suspect their public is prepared for much higher casualties to reabsorb Ukraine back into greater Russia, where it was for four centuries, precisely how tens of millions of Russians aged about 40 and over remember Ukraine's relationship to the Mother Land and their Imperial glories over centuries.

The one thing that's been good news for us will ultimately undo Ukraine. It appears that Russian tactical and theater specific strategy hasn't really changed since WW2. The good news, if we get drawn into this centuries old conflict we will probably win, albeit like the UK after WW2, utterly exhausted. The bad news is the Russians will just bring up more men, more tanks, more big guns, missiles and rockets for their next offensive which will probably come south of Kyiv. Their infantry attacks will just be preceded by bigger and bigger barrages. The Ukrainians will simply run out of combat soldiers, and the ability to organize the ones that remain.

We need to remember what war fighting is all about and whose interests are at stake in fighting a war.​

I definitely agree that there is a fine line here and that overzealous rhetoric should not be used.

Also, given nationalist identify, of course many Russians will be supporting the war. This is no different than any mindless populace saying "support your troops." It's a trivial statement that troops should be supported - but that should not get conflated with agreeing with decisions and/or policies that are made that relate to war.

Some of what you expound upon is interesting - because it continues to make one wonder what Putin's motive was. Obviously there is historical context - the long tradition of Russia attempting to squash Ukrainian nationalism - AND the origins of Kieven Rus' culture/traditions.

However, I always used to view Putin as being quite clever and tactical. At face value, it seems like Putin made a Donald Rumsfeld-like blunder of thinking that a quick Shock-and-Awe campaign could lead to an easy path to restructuring Ukrainian power structure in Russia's favor. Is there a game within the game that I'm missing here? Alternatively, many have postulated that Putin's deteriorating health along with his relative isolation has impacted his mental faculties. It's not uncommon for long-term dictators to grow increasingly eccentric (separated from reality) due to the relative vacuum of only being surrounded by "yes-men."

Anyhow, the Russian people may support their troops - but they're no more (or less) stupid than their American counterparts. The caveat being that their ability to protest against government actions is more limited due to their relative lack of liberties.
 
Last edited:

The Deplorable Sleeping Dog

HR Heisman
Gold Member
May 9, 2018
6,124
8,290
113
I definitely agree that there is a fine line here and that overzealous rhetoric should be used.

Also, given nationalist identify, of course many Russians will be supporting the war. This is no different than any mindless populace saying "support your troops." It's a trivial statement that troops should be supported - but that should not get conflated with agreeing with decisions and/or policies that are made that relate to war.

Some of what you expound upon is interesting - because it continues to make one wonder what Putin's motive was. Obviously there is historical context - the long tradition of Russia attempting to squash Ukrainian nationalism - AND the origins of Kieven Rus' culture/traditions.

However, I always used to view Putin as being quite clever and tactical. At face value, it seems like Putin made a Donald Rumsfeld-like blunder of thinking that a quick Shock-and-Awe campaign could lead to an easy path to restructuring Ukrainian power structure in Russia's favor. Is there a game within the game that I'm missing here? Alternatively, many have postulated that Putin's deteriorating health along with his relative isolation has impacted his mental faculties. It's not uncommon for long-term dictators to grow increasingly eccentric (separated from reality) due to the relative vacuum of only being surrounded by "yes-men."

Anyhow, the Russian people may support their troops - but they're no more (or less) stupid than their American counterparts. The caveat being that their ability to protest against government actions is more limited due to their relative lack of liberties.
I think you are underestimating the Russian sense of nationalism, especially as to Ukraine. Like Belarus and Georgia most Russians think Ukraine is an integral part of their nation/empire. That's the distinction with American adventures abroad. This would like California becoming a break away country. Americans would probably be enthusiastic for reabsorption of California than they would ever care about a "foreign" enemy.

You actually kind of reinforce this motive. Russians very much think their history started with the Rus Vikings settling in Novgorod and Kyiv. Many holy sites in the Russian Orthodox Church are in the Ukraine, and Russians are also very religious, much more so than Western Europeans or Americans.

I agree, Putin did underestimate the extent of the Ukrainian resistance. Russia still hasn't fully mobilized their vast "ready reserve" of soldiers. They have millions of reserves and a large stockpile of equipment waiting for them. It's hard to get accurate information because everyone is lying-not new in wartime-but thus I haven't seen significant reserve units deployed in Ukraine. Calling up some of the reserves could impact popular support or supercharge it, remains to be seen. But once they start bringing up reserves the war is over, unless US/NATO & NATO adjacent get involved in the fighting, which will definitely bring Belarus into the war as Russia's ally.

OK, short and I think funny story about blind ass luck. My father, Freddy (and yes I am a Teddy Freddy) hated school. Wanted to join the army but he was born in 11/1928 so he couldn't even join with parental consent until he was 16, 11/4/1944. Well he nagged his mother and volunteered and was admitted on like January 10, 1945.

Well, the first thing they did was send his ass to army high school. Instead of the regular school, 6 hours a day 5 days a week he got ten hours a day six days a week and got a US Army HS Diploma. So then he was sent for basic to Biloxi for another ninety days. Well by the time basic was over we were just a few weeks out of nuking Japan. They didn't need anymore ground forces so he was sent to mechanic school and trained to be a B-29 mechanic. The war ends they don't need any more B29 mechanics so he then gets what is surely the easiest military job in history-a steward on regular officer's flights from Montana to Alaska and then on to Vladivostok. He was a charming guy and quickly became the bosses pet and they'd let him serve as an "aide", a polite military word for "butler" and got to kill time in Vladivostok after the pets had carried all the briefcases, maps etc... to the buildings were these meeting occurred.

So old Fred goes into the ready reserve in 49. One year later comes Korea and all the guy's his age are immediately drafted or called up. So, Fred thinks he's going to Korea. They did an intake with the specialists to determine where to send them. He reported to Camp Dodge as ordered. The officer looked at Freddy's file sees he was a B-29 mechanic specialist. We didn't need many B29 mechanics because we didn't use many in Korea and Fred was the least experienced age. So, they told him to go home and he'd hear from them. Two and half years later the Korean War ended and the old man never had to leave Iowa. He never heard back. Now that's a ready reserve.

The Russian reserves are probably managed a little more efficiently.
 

littlez

HR Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
7,455
6,206
113
I think you are underestimating the Russian sense of nationalism, especially as to Ukraine. Like Belarus and Georgia most Russians think Ukraine is an integral part of their nation/empire. That's the distinction with American adventures abroad. This would like California becoming a break away country. Americans would probably be enthusiastic for reabsorption of California than they would ever care about a "foreign" enemy.

You actually kind of reinforce this motive. Russians very much think their history started with the Rus Vikings settling in Novgorod and Kyiv. Many holy sites in the Russian Orthodox Church are in the Ukraine, and Russians are also very religious, much more so than Western Europeans or Americans.

I agree, Putin did underestimate the extent of the Ukrainian resistance. Russia still hasn't fully mobilized their vast "ready reserve" of soldiers. They have millions of reserves and a large stockpile of equipment waiting for them. It's hard to get accurate information because everyone is lying-not new in wartime-but thus I haven't seen significant reserve units deployed in Ukraine. Calling up some of the reserves could impact popular support or supercharge it, remains to be seen. But once they start bringing up reserves the war is over, unless US/NATO & NATO adjacent get involved in the fighting, which will definitely bring Belarus into the war as Russia's ally.

OK, short and I think funny story about blind ass luck. My father, Freddy (and yes I am a Teddy Freddy) hated school. Wanted to join the army but he was born in 11/1928 so he couldn't even join with parental consent until he was 16, 11/4/1944. Well he nagged his mother and volunteered and was admitted on like January 10, 1945.

Well, the first thing they did was send his ass to army high school. Instead of the regular school, 6 hours a day 5 days a week he got ten hours a day six days a week and got a US Army HS Diploma. So then he was sent for basic to Biloxi for another ninety days. Well by the time basic was over we were just a few weeks out of nuking Japan. They didn't need anymore ground forces so he was sent to mechanic school and trained to be a B-29 mechanic. The war ends they don't need any more B29 mechanics so he then gets what is surely the easiest military job in history-a steward on regular officer's flights from Montana to Alaska and then on to Vladivostok. He was a charming guy and quickly became the bosses pet and they'd let him serve as an "aide", a polite military word for "butler" and got to kill time in Vladivostok after the pets had carried all the briefcases, maps etc... to the buildings were these meeting occurred.

So old Fred goes into the ready reserve in 49. One year later comes Korea and all the guy's his age are immediately drafted or called up. So, Fred thinks he's going to Korea. They did an intake with the specialists to determine where to send them. He reported to Camp Dodge as ordered. The officer looked at Freddy's file sees he was a B-29 mechanic specialist. We didn't need many B29 mechanics because we didn't use many in Korea and Fred was the least experienced age. So, they told him to go home and he'd hear from them. Two and half years later the Korean War ended and the old man never had to leave Iowa. He never heard back. Now that's a ready reserve.

The Russian reserves are probably managed a little more efficiently.
You seem to think highly of Russia’s army. If it was as good as you seem to think why haven’t they brought out their A game yet? Supposedly Putin thought they were going to be in and out? Their equipment is old. They are struggling to take over Ukraine.
 

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
8,324
9,438
113
You actually kind of reinforce this motive. Russians very much think their history started with the Rus Vikings settling in Novgorod and Kyiv. Many holy sites in the Russian Orthodox Church are in the Ukraine, and Russians are also very religious, much more so than Western Europeans or Americans.
An interesting little dichotomy given that many Soviet block nations (and other communist nations) took Marx's criticisms of religion more to heart. But yeah ... it always struck me as odd ... but, on the flip side, the poor masses often gravitate more toward religion ... so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JStandefer