Have we got the us military wrong?

[Blue1980]

Since when? If you're making a claim, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim.

Who's we in the above sentence? If you need a work-around because you can't support your own statements, that's your issue, not mine.

Is this what you say when you can't support your statements?

The onus is on the person making the claim to substantiate that claim. This is basic stuff.

Otherwise, I might as well say unicorns are real and then challenge you to prove they're not. Is that how it works?

So the claim remains unsubstantiated. In that case, we should disregard it.

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. It either happened or it didn't. And if you're going to make a claim about something that supposedly happened, then the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. You can't.

So I ask you again, did Trump seek to enact a military coup or didn't he?

But... but... but Bayesian thinking!

That's not an answer. It's your latest lame attempt to sound smarter than you are.

People have opinions on things all the time where they don’t fully know one way or another, based on events that have happened, and they use their own logic from there.

You think FK supports Trump cos he was used to being the dumbest person in every room? I assume you don’t have actual evidence of this, and would be your option based off things you have pieced together.

This is an Internet forum, not a court of law. Hundreds or thousands of posts are made across all forums here every day which are using opinions/best guesses.

So even though I’ve explained repeatedly why I think what I think and what circumstantial evidence I think exists, short of having an actual recording on me of Trump talking to military saying “so boys when we doing the coup?” then obviously it’s a conspiracy I’m indulging in.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

People have opinions on things all the time where they don’t fully know one way or another, based on events that have happened, and they use their own logic from there.

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a fact?

It might be your opinion that strawberry ice cream is preferable to vanilla ice cream. No one can dispute that. It is an opinion about the relative merits of the two flavours.

But when you claim Trump sought to enact a military coup, that is not an opinion. It is a statement about something that either did or didn't happen. It is a statement that is either factually correct or factually incorrect.

You can't simply claim it's your opinion, like that erases any requirement to support it. Did it happen or didn't it? Or is it simply a story you tell yourself regardless of any relationship to an empirical reality?

Read that again slowly if you must.

You think FK supports Trump cos he was used to being the dumbest person in every room? I assume you don’t have actual evidence of this, and would be your option based off things you have pieced together.

Yes, that's an opinion. It's not asserted as a statement of fact.

This is some basic stuff.

You apparently don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

This is an Internet forum, not a court of law. Hundreds or thousands of posts are made across all forums here every day which are using opinions/best guesses.

See above.

If you want to untether yourself from facts, I guess that's up to you.

So even though I’ve explained repeatedly why I think what I think and what circumstantial evidence I think exists, short of having an actual recording on me of Trump talking to military saying “so boys when we doing the coup?” then obviously it’s a conspiracy I’m indulging in.

So it's just a story you tell yourself?

 

[Blue1980]

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a fact?

It might be your opinion that strawberry ice cream is preferable to vanilla ice cream. No one can dispute that. It is an opinion about the relative merits of the two flavours.

But when you claim Trump sought to enact a military coup, that is not an opinion. It is a statement about something that either did or didn't happen. It is a statement that is either factually correct or factually incorrect.

You can't simply claim it's your opinion, like that erases any requirement to support it. Did it happen or didn't it? Or is it simply a story you tell yourself regardless of any relationship to an empirical reality?

Read that again slowly if you must.

Yes, that's an opinion. It's not asserted as a statement of fact.

This is some basic stuff.

You apparently don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

See above.

If you want to untether yourself from facts, I guess that's up to you.

So it's just a story you tell yourself?

I said it was my opinion he’d have spoken to military loyalists to see if he had any support.

I gave reasons I thought that.

You don’t agree or don’t think I have enough to go on, fine.

But seriously cut with the crap I said this was fact, when I’ve repeatedly said it was my opinion.

Is that seriously what you are hung up on?

What detailed explanations/proof do you want me to provide that I haven’t provided yet to justify my opinion?

Again why this is the hill you are willing to die on is totally bizarre, like this is somehow a personal issue for you.

99.9% of posters would either ignore it, say it’s BS and that it didn’t happen, or maybe agree. You seem to think it’s the most ridiculous argument anyone has put forth on this forum ever.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I said it was my opinion he’d have spoken to military loyalists to see if he had any support.

I gave reasons I thought that.

You don’t agree or don’t think I have enough to go on, fine.

So do you think Trump sought to enact a military coup or don't you?

But seriously cut with the crap I said this was fact, when I’ve repeatedly said it was my opinion.

But it's not a matter of opinion.

Do you still not grasp this most basic concept?

It's like saying "in my opinion Carlton won the premiership last year". They either did or they didn't. Opinion doesn't come into it. It's a question of fact. Did it happen or didn't it?

What detailed explanations/proof do you want me to provide that I haven’t provided yet to justify my opinion?

Again, it's not a matter of opinion.

Opinion is subjective. We're discussing a point of fact.

Come back to me once you grasp this.

99.9% of posters would either ignore it, say it’s BS and that it didn’t happen, or maybe agree. You seem to think it’s the most ridiculous argument anyone has put forth on this forum ever.

In my opinion, senior Democrats have been running a child sex ring. That's my opinion. Can you prove they haven't been doing that?

This is analogous to how I regard your position.

You are casting a claim about the facts as your opinion, and then challenging others to prove your claim is inaccurate. It's a basic failure of logic and reasoning.

 

[Blue1980]

So do you think Trump sought to enact a military coup or don't you?

But it's not a matter of opinion.

Do you still not grasp this most basic concept?

It's like saying "in my opinion Carlton won the premiership last year". They either did or they didn't. Opinion doesn't come into it. It's a question of fact. Did it happen or didn't it?

Again, it's not a matter of opinion.

Opinion is subjective. We're discussing a point of fact.

Come back to me once you grasp this.

In my opinion, senior Democrats have been running a child sex ring. That's my opinion. Can you prove they haven't been doing that?

This is analogous to how I regard your position.

You are casting a claim about the facts as your opinion, and then challenging others to prove your claim is inaccurate. It's a basic failure of logic and reasoning.

We know is a military coup didn’t happen nor was one attempted. That is the indisputable fact.

How the hell would they been able to enact a military coup and keep it under wraps? That’s a ridiculous theory and not one I ever made.

Thing is I said that very very early on, I thought I had made that clear.

I do think he had conversations with some loyalists about what the military could do to help his cause and what support he had. I think he appointed the loyalists for a reason, not just because he’s a swell guy.

I mean did he wine and dine Michigan electors at Trump Tower just to be friendly? Is it a conspiracy to think they discussed the election results and overturning them? I mean we don’t know for sure do we?

 

[Blue1980]

I remember this whole episode too, whether it got discussed with the military, no idea.

Trump Reportedly Asked Advisors About Deploying Military To Overturn Election

Michael Flynn floated using “military capabilities.”

www.google.com

Part of the article: On Thursday, Flynn said that Trump could deploy the military to swing states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden in order to “rerun” the presidential election.

Now it may of gone no further beyond those assembled idiots present. Deploying military to swing states isn’t the same as a coup either. Though it’s getting into fairly non democratic territory.

I do think Trump (or his inner circle) put the feelers out to the military at some stage. That doesn’t mean he was organising a military coup (not even sure Trump knows what that is), but clearly he was listening to any crackpot theory.

Im guessing discussions just stayed between the loyalists and there was not enough support and not so subtle warnings given that they wouldn’t go along with any Trump BS he had planned.

In terms of what Trump could of potentially been up to (I’m sure much will come out in time which is even nuttier than what we already know, probably things none of us have even thought of) I think me saying “I think Trump or associates spoke to members of military” is pretty benign. Hell, there is crazier stuff we know for a fact he did!

How this is on the same level of pizzagate in your mind, I’ve got no idea.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We know is a military coup didn’t happen nor was one attempted. That is the indisputable fact.

How the hell would they been able to enact a military coup and keep it under wraps? That’s a ridiculous theory and not one I ever made.

So Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup.

Thing is I said that very very early on, I thought I had made that clear.

I do think he had conversations with some loyalists about what the military could do to help his cause and what support he had. I think he appointed the loyalists for a reason, not just because he’s a swell guy.

I mean did he wine and dine Michigan electors at Trump Tower just to be friendly? Is it a conspiracy to think they discussed the election results and overturning them? I mean we don’t know for sure do we?

So he didn't seek to enact a military coup.

Interference is not the same as a military coup.

You've spent many posts saying not much. But hopefully you now understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

I remember this whole episode too, whether it got discussed with the military, no idea.

Trump Reportedly Asked Advisors About Deploying Military To Overturn Election

Michael Flynn floated using “military capabilities.”

www.google.com

Part of the article: On Thursday, Flynn said that Trump could deploy the military to swing states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden in order to “rerun” the presidential election.

Now it may of gone no further beyond those assembled idiots present. Deploying military to swing states isn’t the same as a coup either. Though it’s getting into fairly non democratic territory.

I do think Trump (or his inner circle) put the feelers out to the military at some stage. That doesn’t mean he was organising a military coup (not even sure Trump knows what that is), but clearly he was listening to any crackpot theory.

Im guessing discussions just stayed between the loyalists and there was not enough support and not so subtle warnings given that they wouldn’t go along with any Trump BS he had planned.

In terms of what Trump could of potentially been up to (I’m sure much will come out in time which is even nuttier than what we already know, probably things none of us have even thought of) I think me saying “I think Trump or associates spoke to members of military” is pretty benign. Hell, there is crazier stuff we know for a fact he did!

So wait, you just said Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup. But now you want to have a bob each way by suggesting maybe he did. You still want that speculation to be available as a criticism.

It's tedious watching you go back and forth with this intellectually dishonest little tap dance.

If you accept that he didn't seek to enact a military coup, you can't then immediately pivot to saying "yeah but maybe he did".

How this is on the same level of pizzagate in your mind, I’ve got no idea.

Can you read?

It's an analogy.

You are casting a claim about the facts as your opinion, and then challenging others to prove your claim is inaccurate.

 

[Blue1980]

So Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup.

So he didn't seek to enact a military coup.

Interference is not the same as a military coup.

You've spent many posts saying not much. But hopefully you now understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

So wait, you just said Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup. But now you want to have a bob each way by suggesting maybe he did. You still want that speculation to be available as a criticism.

It's tedious watching you go back and forth with this intellectually dishonest little tap dance.

If you accept that he didn't seek to enact a military coup, you can't then immediately pivot to saying "yeah but maybe he did".

You are casting a claim about the facts as your opinion, and then challenging others to prove your claim is inaccurate.

Correct, interference isn’t the same as a coup.

Discussions I believe would of been had with some loyalists in military about said possible interference. (I said this way earlier, that would of been about what they could do to help his cause).

The interference would of been along the lines of what Flynn suggested.

Not coup, interference.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Correct, interference isn’t the same as a coup.

No kidding.

Discussions I believe would of been had with some loyalists in military about said possible interference. (I said this way earlier, that would of been about what they could do to help his cause).

The interference would of been along the lines of what Flynn suggested.

Not coup, interference.

So Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup. As far as we can ascertain.

That is not available to you as a criticism.

 

[Blue1980]

So Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup. As far as we can ascertain.

That is not available to you as a criticism.

Correct.

My original sin in this thread was using the words military coup, when I should of said interference.

 

[CD Xbow]

Correct.

My original sin in this thread was using the words military coup, when I should of said interference.

I think you could call it an attempted coup, not an attempted military coup though. Definition below contains no requirement for it to be military:

Coup - a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Nor does the definition require it to be successful or competent.

The 'insurrection' on Jan the 6th was sudden, violent and an illegal attempt attempt to seize power from legitimate government, ie an attemted coup by definition. We can debate forever Trumps role in it, but his words are a matter of public record as are his attempts to get officials to 'find votes' and his refusal to accept the outcome.

Lucky for the US and the world the US military didn't go along with it.

 

[Seeds]

So Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup.

So he didn't seek to enact a military coup.

Interference is not the same as a military coup.

You've spent many posts saying not much. But hopefully you now understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

So wait, you just said Trump didn't seek to enact a military coup. But now you want to have a bob each way by suggesting maybe he did. You still want that speculation to be available as a criticism.

It's tedious watching you go back and forth with this intellectually dishonest little tap dance.

If you accept that he didn't seek to enact a military coup, you can't then immediately pivot to saying "yeah but maybe he did".

Can you read?

It's an analogy.

You are casting a claim about the facts as your opinion, and then challenging others to prove your claim is inaccurate.

No one has evidence trump tried to enact a military coup.

No one has evidence he didn’t.

It’s all opinion.

Some opinion more logically thought out than others.

it’s startling that you don’t realise your view is also an opinion without evidence to back it up.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No one has evidence trump tried to enact a military coup.

No one has evidence he didn’t.

That is a jarringly stupid logical fallacy.

The fact I have to explain this to you is mildly depressing.

Do you have evidence that unicorns don't exist?

I guess we'll have to call it even on that question too?

It’s all opinion.

Some opinion more logically thought out than others.

it’s startling that you don’t realise your view is also an opinion without evidence to back it up.

Wow, another person who doesn't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

We are discussing an event that either occurred or it didn't. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

I merely ask for evidence about your claim about what happened.

If you have no evidence for your claim, that's really the end of the discussion. It can be dismissed like every other unsubstantiated claim. And yet you present it as the premise for your OP.

 

[Seeds]

That is a jarringly stupid logical fallacy.

The fact I have to explain this to you is mildly depressing.

Do you have evidence that unicorns don't exist?

I guess we'll have to call it even on that question too?

Wow, another person who doesn't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

We are discussing an event that either occurred or it didn't. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact.

I merely ask for evidence about your claim about what happened.

If you have no evidence for your claim, that's really the end of the discussion. It can be dismissed like every other unsubstantiated claim. And yet you present it as the premise for your OP.

It’s a matter of opinion as to whether an event happened if we don’t have evidence To prove otherwise or not. It’s only a fact if we do have evidence.

you are confusing opinions with subjectiveness. Opinions aren’t only the domain of subjective concepts. They are also about unknown objective outcomes.

if opinions could only be made about things that are subjective then concepts like Bayesian logic wouldn’t exist.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It’s a matter of opinion as to whether an event happened if we don’t have evidence To prove otherwise or not. It’s only a fact if we do have evidence.

If you're making a claim without evidence, it can be dismissed as such.

 

[Lethality]

This might be better served being in the conspiracy board with the other crackpots.

That's what was said about him not conceding the election. Then, like clockwork, he did exactly what his past behaviour would indicate.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Should we be looking at the US military in a different light given recent events in the US and Myanmar?

Why did trumps first coup attempt fail? It’s not because he only had 40 percent of the population on his side. The Nazis only had 30 percent fanatical support during their coup. The bolsheviks much less. Myanmars military virtually had no popular support. So why?

it was the military. They did not fall in line behind trump despite trumps constant firings and threats of firing of those who spoke out against him. They stood firm in the face of the US democracies first big domestic test.

ask another question. Since the end of world war 2 the US military has been the don bradman of militaries. So much more advanced then the rest. The sole dominant force on the planet for 70 years. So how much land would they steal given this power? I’m guessing Japan, a large chunk of Europe and a large chunk of Latin America. Nope I was way wrong, In the end it was a couple of islands in the pacific. why did the military show such restraint compared to other similarly positioned militaries in history? And yes politicians have the final say but the military no doubt could of pressured them into easy wins. Yet they did not. Maybe it’s because the military stands for democratic values. It’s structured in a way that prevents authoritarian take over. It’s leaders are honorable people (well in part).

And who was it by all reports that stopped trump from fire bombing nth Korea early in his presidency and stopped trump from invading Venezuela? It was the military once again who intervened before it happened.

I’m not saying the us military is some utopian peace force. It clearly has done some terrible things, particularly at the lower levels of leadership. I would much rather a global military force pushing liberal laws then a US one. But in view of history given its position of strength it has clearly been overall a strong supporter of democratic virtue. If it wasn’t for the US military then Trump probably would be a dictator right now. Maybe we should give it some slack?

Nice story dude. How about you provide some facts. What coup attempt, lets start there.

 

[DaRick]

Should we be looking at the US military in a different light given recent events in the US and Myanmar?

I don't. My view of the US military is that they're both overfunded and overstretched, trying to defend too many areas at once.

For example, should Russia decide to take the Baltics (they won't; they added little to the USSR and provide little in the way of resources, plus there's too much distrust between the Russians and Baltic peoples), there's no way that the US military personnel stationed there could realistically hold them off. Some would enquire about the EU, to which I'd respond that EU militaries are not really geared to ward off conventional invasions anymore. I'd say that's appropriate given the nature of most 21st century wars (limited, requiring specialised, limited numbers of troops and equipment, elusive enemy), but still.

Why did trumps first coup attempt fail? It’s not because he only had 40 percent of the population on his side. The Nazis only had 30 percent fanatical support during their coup. The bolsheviks much less. Myanmars military virtually had no popular support. So why?

it was the military. They did not fall in line behind trump despite trumps constant firings and threats of firing of those who spoke out against him. They stood firm in the face of the US democracies first big domestic test.

If they didn't, the military would have been split, potentially igniting mass unrest if not an outright civil war, with god knows how many American cities becoming hotspots (pardon the phrase). They weren't going to potentially go through all that for an awful President.

ask another question. Since the end of world war 2 the US military has been the don bradman of militaries. So much more advanced then the rest. The sole dominant force on the planet for 70 years. So how much land would they steal given this power? I’m guessing Japan, a large chunk of Europe and a large chunk of Latin America. Nope I was way wrong, In the end it was a couple of islands in the pacific. why did the military show such restraint compared to other similarly positioned militaries in history? And yes politicians have the final say but the military no doubt could of pressured them into easy wins. Yet they did not. Maybe it’s because the military stands for democratic values. It’s structured in a way that prevents authoritarian take over. It’s leaders are honorable people (well in part).

Stealing land and occupying it is expensive, especially in the face of hostile powers, and they didn't come much more hostile than Imperial Japan. Not that the Europeans or Latin Americans would have been pleased with the US becoming their new colonist.

No, much better to just give them the reconstruction money they needed so they could move onto other affairs (like Korea).

I think the post-WW2 US military is more like the Graeme Hick of militaries. All the capability in the world, won their fair share of battles, but have a surprisingly mediocre overall record due to various extraneous factors.

That said, I agree that morally/ethically speaking, the post-WW2 US military is not the worst around. They were IMO clearly superior to, say, the North Vietnamese* or the Soviet Union. I must add though, that their conduct during Operation Condor wasn't much better than whatever the Soviets got up to in Hungary/Czechslovakia.

*Compare the Hue massacre with the My Lai massacre to see the difference. Unfortunately, almost nobody is aware of Northern Vietnamese wartime atrocities because history is written by the victors.

And who was it by all reports that stopped trump from fire bombing nth Korea early in his presidency and stopped trump from invading Venezuela? It was the military once again who intervened before it happened.

That's less due to altruism and more because a nuclear state is always dangerous to invade. Kim Jong-un knows this, and that's why he keeps rattling sabres. As for Venezuela, why would one bother invading a decaying nation (don't say 'the oil'; that's not a good reason)?

I’m not saying the us military is some utopian peace force. It clearly has done some terrible things, particularly at the lower levels of leadership. I would much rather a global military force pushing liberal laws then a US one. But in view of history given its position of strength it has clearly been overall a strong supporter of democratic virtue. If it wasn’t for the US military then Trump probably would be a dictator right now. Maybe we should give it some slack?

It is true that South America has democratised over the past 40 or so years, which is broadly a good thing (all else being equal), but the US military was not directly responsible for that. It seemed to be more of a domino effect in that place, not unlike what happened in Eastern Europe during the late 1980's.

That said, a strong US military would certainly be preferable to a strong Soviet military. Not certain about a strong Chinese military at this point.

 

[DaRick]

What is your favourite dictatorship - Saudi Arabia?

Probably Rwanda, in truth.

Kagame loves a good spot of repression, but he's unusually competent and shrewd for an African leader, being able to play both the US/UK and China off one another.

I could have said 'China' or 'Russia', but I don't think China are a global force for good, while Russia is IMO a hybrid regime with notable authoritarian leanings.

 

[Kwality]

Probably Rwanda, in truth.

Kagame loves a good spot of repression, but he's unusually competent and shrewd for an African leader, being able to play both the US/UK and China off one another.

I could have said 'China' or 'Russia', but I don't think China are a global force for good, while Russia is IMO a hybrid regime with notable authoritarian leanings.

Context dear Rick.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a fact?

Oh such a crucial question for this thread.
Says it all really.

 

[DaRick]

Context dear Rick.

I know you were being facetious before, but the question actually made me curious.

"What is my favourite dictatorship?" isn't normally something one would ask themselves.

 

[Schneebly11]

*Compare the Hue massacre with the My Lai massacre to see the difference. Unfortunately, almost nobody is aware of Northern Vietnamese wartime atrocities because history is written by the victors.

No one knows about the Hue massacre? One of the most popular Vietnam War films, Stanly Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, is set in Hue. There's a scene where they show a mass grave of victims of a NVA massacre in Hue. Quoting directly from the movie:

Well, it seems the N.V.A. came in with a list of (Vietnamese) names. Government officials, policemen, ARVN officers, schoolteachers.
They went around their houses real polite and asked them to report the next day for political re-education. Everybody who turned up got shot. Some they buried alive.

Straight from a popular Vietnam War movie. I can't think of My Lai being depicted so openly in a popular movie.

 

[DaRick]

No one knows about the Hue massacre? One of the most popular Vietnam War films, Stanly Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, is set in Hue. There's a scene where they show a mass grave of victims of a NVA massacre in Hue. Quoting directly from the movie:

Well, it seems the N.V.A. came in with a list of (Vietnamese) names. Government officials, policemen, ARVN officers, schoolteachers.
They went around their houses real polite and asked them to report the next day for political re-education. Everybody who turned up got shot. Some they buried alive.

Cheers for pointing that out, but TBH, Full Metal Jacket is a 1980's (classic) film that a lot of people would have seen a long time ago and would remember more for Sgt. Hartman being shot dead. I couldn't even recall this scene TBH.

Personally, I've found that a lot of people who know about My Lai have no idea that Hue even occurred.

Straight from a popular Vietnam War movie. I can't think of My Lai being depicted so openly in a popular movie.

OK, but My Lai has been represented so many times in other ways.

 

[Schneebly11]

OK, but My Lai has been represented so many times in other ways.

C'mon. I haven't heard of a single one of those TV shows, songs, movies or theater performances about the My Lai massacre, and I've watched a lot of popular media about the Vietnam War. Musicians like John Deer and Terry Nelson? Who TF are they? A 1975 musical?

Whereas Stanley Kubrick is one the greatest directors of all time and his film ranks alongside Platoon and Apocalypse Now as the "classic" Vietnam War movies.

Given all the pro war propaganda out there most westerners think that "our boys" are perfect and only the "evildoers" commit atrocities.