I hope he doesn't too. It's just so creepy. I talked to a man who was an adult during those times and I asked him about it. As an example he told me that once when he was at the DMV a big rich man was allowed into the line ahead of him. I said, "You mean that's the bad thing about when Marcos was president?" He said yes it was. He knew I'd never been to the country, so I couldn't tell him "You don't know what you're talking about." But he didn't know what he was talking about. It was awful but no different than now hearing people praise Trump's goodness.
Unless DeathMantis contrives a means of denying Florida kids access to the internet he's not going to successfully stupidify Florida sufficiently to remain in power.
There are three very striking things about the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential candidate debates. The first is that the two gentlemen agreed on our nation's goals - the disputes were over how to accomplish them. The second is the detail both candidates could get into on the major issues of the day. Yes, some of them seem petty all these years later, but I suspect that's always been true. The important thing is that at the time, these were what people thought mattered. The third thing is the respect Kennedy and Nixon had for each other. Both had served in World War Ii; both had been in public life and public service for some time. Clearly there are serious issues with both of them - although I don't think Mr. Kennedy was personally or politically corrupt. To watch those debates today is to understand how much has changed since then. Generally, for the worse.
To be honest, I don't think it ever really did. If we cast our mind back to Russian military successes since Peter the Great, they tended to be either part of a coalition of more industrialized nations, were repulsing a land invasion of Russian territory against an overstretched opponent, or were fighting the Ottoman Turks (known as the "sick man of Europe). For the victories of Suvarov or Kutuzov or Zhukov, there are the massive defeats in the Crimean War, the Eastern Front, the Russo-Japanese war etc.
None of this is to take away from the bravery of the ordinary Russian soldier or sailor; their actions at Stalingrad or Borodino speak for themselves. But they've always been hampered by poor leadership, often inferior equipment and inadequate training and these shortcomings come up time after time.
When the Prussians were beaten at Jena by Napoleon in 1806, General Gerhard von Scharnhorst held a commission that completely reorganized an army that had been allowed to rest on its laurels after Frederick the Great's campaigns. In the words of Clausewitz “Behind the fine façade, all was mildewed." You'd think that the Russian defeat in Afghanistan would have had a similar effect, but with the chaos of the Soviet breakup, I guess it didn't happen.
Sorry--I shouldn't have been so flippant. Hope he doesn't get anywhere with the people.
I hope he doesn't too. It's just so creepy. I talked to a man who was an adult during those times and I asked him about it. As an example he told me that once when he was at the DMV a big rich man was allowed into the line ahead of him. I said, "You mean that's the bad thing about when Marcos was president?" He said yes it was. He knew I'd never been to the country, so I couldn't tell him "You don't know what you're talking about." But he didn't know what he was talking about. It was awful but no different than now hearing people praise Trump's goodness.
When the brass asserts that NCOs are the backbone of the US military they are absolutely gawd damned RIGHT.
But when in conflicts we had NO business engaging not even that kind of stability is going to make a damned bit of difference, unfortunately.
Afghanistan remains something paul simmers angrily and resentfully about to this day.
Ted Cruz: Is it safe for Americans to travel to Cancun?Ron Johnson: My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Unless DeathMantis contrives a means of denying Florida kids access to the internet he's not going to successfully stupidify Florida sufficiently to remain in power.
Economy of scale and a willingness to accept 18th century casualty rates.
It's easy if you don't value the lives of your citizens.
That is clearly the defining factor.
There are three very striking things about the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential candidate debates. The first is that the two gentlemen agreed on our nation's goals - the disputes were over how to accomplish them. The second is the detail both candidates could get into on the major issues of the day. Yes, some of them seem petty all these years later, but I suspect that's always been true. The important thing is that at the time, these were what people thought mattered. The third thing is the respect Kennedy and Nixon had for each other. Both had served in World War Ii; both had been in public life and public service for some time. Clearly there are serious issues with both of them - although I don't think Mr. Kennedy was personally or politically corrupt. To watch those debates today is to understand how much has changed since then. Generally, for the worse.
Either of those got nukes or a navy that could survive a moderate storm?
If Rethuglicons have their way the US will be even more authoritarian and isolated than Russia was during the height of the Cold War.
To be honest, I don't think it ever really did. If we cast our mind back to Russian military successes since Peter the Great, they tended to be either part of a coalition of more industrialized nations, were repulsing a land invasion of Russian territory against an overstretched opponent, or were fighting the Ottoman Turks (known as the "sick man of Europe). For the victories of Suvarov or Kutuzov or Zhukov, there are the massive defeats in the Crimean War, the Eastern Front, the Russo-Japanese war etc.
None of this is to take away from the bravery of the ordinary Russian soldier or sailor; their actions at Stalingrad or Borodino speak for themselves. But they've always been hampered by poor leadership, often inferior equipment and inadequate training and these shortcomings come up time after time.
When the Prussians were beaten at Jena by Napoleon in 1806, General Gerhard von Scharnhorst held a commission that completely reorganized an army that had been allowed to rest on its laurels after Frederick the Great's campaigns. In the words of Clausewitz “Behind the fine façade, all was mildewed." You'd think that the Russian defeat in Afghanistan would have had a similar effect, but with the chaos of the Soviet breakup, I guess it didn't happen.
And without housing or healthcare.
One day I'll do my TED talk about how the English monarchy's dependence on the longbow gave rise to modern capitalism and the industrial revolution.
The Russian elite's have always been afraid of the great unwashed. NCO's are an existential threat to oligarchy.
The fact that Avril Haines is free to testify in front of Congress, much less have a government job, is exactly why the US is not a party to the ICC.
Jeez I hope none of these tasks involved writing in English
Ahhhhh, I’m guessing English is not the poster’s first language, but props for giving it a try.