-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you want the Ukrainian War to end today?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
post 206
Donald Trump is your PM?
I hadn't heard!
I asked if you had any statistics from public opinion polls about the popularity of Trump in Italy. The fact that you have a PM who adores The D in no way tells me how popular the latter is among Italians. All that you've shown me so far is that Trump is popular among the Italian Right Wing.
Now, again: do you have any public polling data showing widespread support among Italians for Trump?
I was curious myself, so I did some checking. Found an article from a few years ago: Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable
As a side note, confidence in Trump was higher in Ukraine in 2020 than most other European countries listed, except Poland. It seems they must really like Trump in the Philippines, for whatever reason.
No one outside of Italy cares.
Even some Italians don't.
It's understandable.
Being an American colony, we Italians do care who the POTUS is.
Ugh...we need higher quality colonies.It's understandable.
Being an American colony, we Italians do care who the POTUS is.
USA tried colonization by importation of Africans.Try Africa
That turned out poorly.
Why can't USA and Russia be allies?
a) incompatibility between Capitalism and Socialism?
b) geopolitical rivalry?
c) antipathy?
Thanks
The invasion of Ukraine, for one reason.
Threats to invade other former Soviet satellites for another.
There are others, but I find the listed ones most cromulent.
I don't think USA & Russia will ever be allies, since Russia
sides with Chinese hegemony. But a chilly peace could
be possible some day.
In Italy we say: the bull that calls the donkey horned (the US is the bull and the donkey is Russia).
a more sarcastic way to mean: pot calls kettle black.
No...they are not interested in invading all those Slavic and Baltic nations,...that have now become EU member states.
Ukraine is becoming a EU member state too.
...which was a big mistake, dear Americans.
You should have tried to turn Russia into a strategic ally, back when Gorbachev and Yeltsin were presidents.
Big mistake.
That's a relief.
In Revoltistan we have a saying....In Italy we say: the bull that calls the donkey horned (the US is the bull and the donkey is Russia).
a more sarcastic way to mean: pot calls kettle black.
The baboon plays chess, while the lion eats dessert.
No...they are not interested in invading all those Slavic and Baltic nations,...that have now become EU member states.
Ukraine is becoming a EU member state too.
Perhaps you're too young to remember
Reagan & Gorby seeking peace.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
That's nonsense. Every single satellite country in the former Warsaw Pact is now in NATO, and so are the former Baltic Soviet Socialist Republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Why? Because they all feared Russia and NATO is a defensive alliance whose existence is justified only by a fear of Russian expansionism. NATO's nuclear umbrella (Article 5) prevents Russia from attacking those countries, but it is still threatening the Baltic Republics and even Poland. Certainly, Moldava is at risk, since Russian troops already occupy part of its territory. Ukraine has wanted to become part of the NATO alliance as long as those countries, but NATO kept putting them off out of fear that it would be perceived as too provocative by Moscow. Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has changed the politics, and it is now very likely that Ukraine will be accepted into NATO and the EU.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
So, that's a no. Thanks for answering my question, even if indirectly.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
JFK increased only the military advisors to the South Vietnam army so that the south vietnamese army can do its job better without outside assistance.
The Korean war which lead to U.S. defeat and over 36000 casualties, was just a decade back then, and was fresh in everyone's minds.
Kennedy probably took this in perspective and did not put army troops in Vietnam so as to avoid a similar disaster and unnecessary bloodshed.
Kennedy's military background as a naval officer also probably helped him in his judgement.
After JFK's untimely and suspicious death, his successor Lydon Johnson was the one who first authorised military troops in Vietnam.
Johnson , unlike JFK, did not have a military background and probably cowed into pressure and veiled threats from the military industrial complex and war hawks in their payroll, to send in the army.
Kennedy's decision not to send American troops was later found to be correct, as the Vietnam war turned out to be a far bigger disaster than the Korean war.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Actually, what he sent in 1961 was about 500 "special forces and advisors". And they did engage in combat, so he kept sending more. Within a year, there were about 11,000 "advisors" helping South Vietnamese troops--a substantial escalation. I would say that the label was largely cosmetic--something like Putin insisting that his full scale invasion of Ukraine was not a war, but a "special military operation". The troops he sent included Green Berets, who were authorized to conduct covert military operations.
The fact that he commanded a patrol torpedo boat in WW2 gave him combat experience, but the decision to commit troops to fight in a civil war in Vietnam required entirely different experience. He really depended on Secretary Robert McNamara (who much later regretted his role) and Pentagon strategists to help him make those decisions.
No question that LBJ ramped up the escalation, probably far more than Kennedy was willing to commit to. LBJ not only believed that US military might would prevail, but he became very involved in strategic decisions that he felt needed political buy-off. He literally participated in meetings to choose bombing targets in North Vietnam.
But "Special Forces" were American troops, and 11,000 of them (and "advisors") in 1962 was a huge escalation. There were rumors that Kennedy was considering a draw-down of forces, but there was never any proof that he would do that. Johnson was far more gung-ho about the war. He was not the kind of person who could be "cowed" by anyone. Rather the opposite, in fact. He was known for shouting at and bullying people. He did a lot of micro-managing of military strategy, because he considered those kinds of decisions to be the prerogative of the President. Johnson was a very good president in many ways, but he made a mess of the Vietnam debacle.
Don't forget that the US got involved in the early 1950s, when Eisenhower decided to help Charles DeGaulle get French troops back into Indochina to reclaim their colonial empire. Eisenhower allowed American ships to carry French troops and war materiel to Vietnam, over the objections of our former ally Ho Chi Minh. The strategy there was to contain the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, where the Japanese defeat had created something of a power vacuum for the well-organized Communist army to move into.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Along with the advisors there could have been clandestine special forces as well, but the casualty rate was high among them during JFK's time as well.
John F. Kennedy and the escalation of the Vietnam War
Under U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy, the number of U.S. advisers to the South Vietnamese military rose from 1,500 to 15,000. From Vietnam Perspective (1985), a documentary by Encyclopædia Britannica Educational Corporation.
President Kennedy increases military aid to Saigon | November 16, 1961 | HISTORY
President John F. Kennedy decides to increase military aid to South Vietnam without committing U.S. combat troops. Kennedy was concerned at the advances being made by the communist Viet Cong, but did not want to become involved in a land war in Vietnam. He hoped that the military aid would be...
www.history.com
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
It's funny that I know exactly what @Copernicus has to deal with in his/her "discussion" with that one member that I have on ignore even though I can't read half of the discussion due to the ignore function.
It's the same arguments the member brought forth on Brexit, the affinity to fascism etc.
For reference:
en.wikipedia.org
It's the same arguments the member brought forth on Brexit, the affinity to fascism etc.
For reference:
Gish gallop - Wikipedia
Heyo
Veteran Member
There are always a few in the class who are exceptionally slow. But on a global scale we have fewer and fewer wars over time and, yes, some of that is because people have learned. And for the slow ones, I guess we'll have to repeat the lesson.