Most of these frontline infantry men have served in Iraq or Afghanistan any advice they give is going to be useless for whatever type of war you think you’ll be fighting 1) tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency 2) the type of war they’re involved in is outdated 3) literally just train
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
Already talked about this
Do you really want to ally with someone who had a very good chance of having committed atrocities during their services regardless of if they felt bad about it? And even if they committed no war crimes why should we recruit them?
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
Im responding to the points thats why each answer is different you seem like your arguing because you want to argue go outside also fighting against an insurgency doesnt translate to knowing at a deep level how that insurgency functions operates etc they may be two sides of the same coin but they’re not the same both require two different skill sets, you’re better off trying to recruit former insurgents from Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland and etc rather than recruiting from veterans who’ve served in infantry this convo is starting to piss me off im done engaging
So a USian is going to just hop over to Afghanistan and recruit former insurgents there, is that it? Yeah, it’s good timing for you to have an excuse to disengage. Your arguments are idealistic nonsense. You tell me to go outside, while ignoring logistical realities in favor of what sounds better to you on paper.
Conflicts are carried out with the tools that people and entities have available to them. That’s why Palestine is being genocided as we speak, instead of bombing israel with parity. It’s why Iran was able to bomb israel with parity when israel started attacking it. It’s one of the reasons we give critical support to anti-imperialist efforts, even when they aren’t explicitly socialist or communist.
I keep trying to introduce nuance into the conversation and you keep insisting on binary thinking. You are in desperate need of dialectics.
Last time Im pointing out the absurdity in your argument you don’t have any nuance to add because you have no stake in this convo you said it yourself if I’m idealistic for pointing out that veterans are a lost cause and showing evidence for it then you and the rest of your “leftist” buddies are nothing more than adventurists masquerading as serious people I have tried to make you see sense but I can see that you too convinced by the sniff of your own fart to listen
You didn’t show evidence of anything remotely resembling such a weighty claim as “veterans are a lost cause.” You made a sweeping generalization to start with. When I asked you about your sourcing, you said some of it’s talking to people, some of it’s content creators (such as streamers), and some of it’s a report on the ADF when the subject was USian veterans. I took the talking to people part as valid, in spite of it being anecdotal and me having to take you at your word. I questioned the validity of viewing content creators as representative of millions of people. I questioned the validity of the ADF report as being relevant to broad claims about USian veterans.
Here again, I give you nuance. And you give me more binary thinking: “veterans are a lost cause”.
Learn to put aside the ego and maybe you’ll be able to see straight on this. If you don’t, you are just going to be all anger with no center.
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
Im responding to the points thats why each answer is different you seem like your arguing because you want to argue go outside also fighting against an insurgency doesnt translate to knowing at a deep level how that insurgency functions operates etc they may be two sides of the same coin but they’re not the same both require two different skill sets, you’re better off trying to recruit former insurgents from Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland and etc rather than recruiting from veterans who’ve served in infantry this convo is starting to piss me off im done engaging
So a USian is going to just hop over to Afghanistan and recruit former insurgents there, is that it? Yeah, it’s good timing for you to have an excuse to disengage. Your arguments are idealistic nonsense. You tell me to go outside, while ignoring logistical realities in favor of what sounds better to you on paper.
Conflicts are carried out with the tools that people and entities have available to them. That’s why Palestine is being genocided as we speak, instead of bombing israel with parity. It’s why Iran was able to bomb israel with parity when israel started attacking it. It’s one of the reasons we give critical support to anti-imperialist efforts, even when they aren’t explicitly socialist or communist.
I keep trying to introduce nuance into the conversation and you keep insisting on binary thinking. You are in desperate need of dialectics.
Last time Im pointing out the absurdity in your argument you don’t have any nuance to add because you have no stake in this convo you said it yourself if I’m idealistic for pointing out that veterans are a lost cause and showing evidence for it then you and the rest of your “leftist” buddies are nothing more than adventurists masquerading as serious people I have tried to make you see sense but I can see that you too convinced by the sniff of your own fart to listen
You didn’t show evidence of anything remotely resembling such a weighty claim as “veterans are a lost cause.” You made a sweeping generalization to start with. When I asked you about your sourcing, you said some of it’s talking to people, some of it’s content creators (such as streamers), and some of it’s a report on the ADF when the subject was USian veterans. I took the talking to people part as valid, in spite of it being anecdotal and me having to take you at your word. I questioned the validity of viewing content creators as representative of millions of people. I questioned the validity of the ADF report as being relevant to broad claims about USian veterans.
Here again, I give you nuance. And you give me more binary thinking: “veterans are a lost cause”.
Learn to put aside the ego and maybe you’ll be able to see straight on this. If you don’t, you are just going to be all anger with no center.
deleted by creator