War in Ukraine

#55,580
#55,580
MG1968 said:
Congratulations, you are the winner of an argument no one was having with you.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s pivot play one when he starts getting dragged on his stupidity. Scroll up and read the concluding paragraph I linked from the doc. You were 100% right in your assertion. Shock and awe arose as a term describing the doctrine from Desert Storm. You just didnā€™t connect the date of coining, 1996 when the paper was written instead of 1991 when it was fought. The last sentence will especially cause the stooges some baby powder. šŸ˜‚
 
#55,581
#55,581
NorthDallas40 said:
Thatā€™s pivot play one when he starts getting dragged on his stupidity. Scroll up and read the concluding paragraph I linked from the doc. You were 100% right in your assertion. Shock and awe arose as a term describing the doctrine from Desert Storm. You just didnā€™t connect the date of coining, 1996 when the paper was written instead of 1991 when it was fought. The last sentence will especially cause the stooges some baby powder. šŸ˜‚
Click to expand...
MG stated it started with Desert Storm. You defended that position. You both were wrong. The author even used the Roman Legions and the Haitian Revolution as examples of shock and awe.
 
#55,582
#55,582
DonjoVol said:
MG stated it started with Desert Storm. You defended that position. You both were wrong. The author even used the Roman Legions and the Haitian Revolution as examples of shock and awe.
Click to expand...
He did no such thing. He referenced his service in Desert Storm in which the shock and awe doctrine was applied. Just as the paper it is named for indicates. Youā€™re wrong again. As usual. This is where you normally go back to band camp and then slink away Curly šŸ¤”

MG1968 said:
How old were you in 1991? Better yet, where were you?

Because I was in Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Storm. Shock and awe is not the firebombing of Dresden you so desperately want to believe it is. Iraq did most of the damage to Kuwaiti infrastructure, set the oil wells ablaze, tortured POWs and so on.

Shock and awe is hitting the enemy with overwhelming force, not letting them regroup, and not letting up until they capitulate. Had your boy Putin adopted that approach in Ukraine, it might very well have taken only two weeks. It would have helped to have had a capable military, too.

You clearly donā€™t know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to military tactics and warfare in general.
Click to expand...
 
#55,583
#55,583
MG1968 said:
How about just admitting that you are wrong and move on. Shock and awe as doctrine originated with Desert Storm. It was not ā€œpopularizedā€ in 2003.
Click to expand...
Hey Proctor. Your pal MG stated it originated in Desert Storm in this post that you liked.
 
#55,584
#55,584
DonjoVol said:
Hey Proctor. Your pal MG stated it originated in Desert Storm in this post that you liked.
Click to expand...
Heā€™s correct in his assertion. Shock and awe was coined in 1996 and as the paper it was coined in indicates the doctrine used by the US in Desert Storm. No where does he assert that Desert Storm is exclusive coinage.

His only other assertion is Moe is wrong on that populist stupidity from 2003 onward being the defining trait. And heā€™s 100% correct on that also
 
#55,585
#55,585
NorthDallas40 said:
Heā€™s correct in his assertion. Shock and awe was coined in 1996 and as the paper it was coined in indicates the doctrine used by the US in Desert Storm. No where does he assert that Desert Storm is exclusive coinage.

His only other assertion is Moe is wrong on that populist stupidity from 2003 onward being the defining trait. And heā€™s 100% correct on that also
Click to expand...
Lol. Look at you trying to spin it now. He specifically stated it "originated with Desert Storm". A position you originally defended here. That is incorrect. The author even stated other historical events where "shock and awe" was used way prior to that. It stated such not only in the book but also in the Wikipedia link I referenced earlier.

And as a term it didn't become popular until 2003 or later. It is correct to say that as it was not a term widely used prior to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#55,586
#55,586
DonjoVol said:
Lol. Look at you trying to spin it now. He specifically stated it "originated with Desert Storm". A position you originally defended here. That is incorrect. The author even stated other historical events where "shock and awe" was used way prior to that. It stated such not only in the book but also in the Wikipedia link I referenced earlier.

And as a term it didn't become popular until 2003 or later. It is correct to say that as it was not a term widely used prior to that.
Click to expand...
LMAO itā€™s hilarious that you stooges have divested the initial claim that shock and awe was massive infrastructure and civilian casualties and instead tried to deflect to and win a non sequitur of the origin date of the term. Q. E. D. youā€™ve accepted your stooge usage of it that Moe was called on is incorrect.

And itā€™s even more hilarious that youā€™re floundering just as bad at your deflection argument. Did you read the paper yet? Did you find that conclusion paragraph I quoted that directly references analysis of Desert Storm?

ā€œThis one timeā€¦ at band campā€¦ā€ šŸ¤”
 
#55,587
#55,587
NorthDallas40 said:
LMAO itā€™s hilarious that you stooges have divested the initial claim that shock and awe was massive infrastructure and civilian casualties and instead tried to deflect to and win a non sequitur of the origin date of the term. Q. E. D. youā€™ve accepted your stooge usage of it that Moe was called on is incorrect.

And itā€™s even more hilarious that youā€™re floundering just as bad at your deflection argument. Did you read the paper yet? Did you find that conclusion paragraph I quoted that directly references analysis of Desert Storm?

ā€œThis one timeā€¦ at band campā€¦ā€ šŸ¤”
Click to expand...
Lol. So you can't admit that MG was wrong in saying it "originated with Desert Storm" and that you were wrong for agreeing with him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#55,589
#55,589
NorthDallas40 said:
We arenā€™t wrong. And Iā€™ve shown that we arenā€™t. Run along and read now
Click to expand...
I did read. And if you did you would see that the author stated "shock and awe" was used by the Roman Legions and in the Haitian Revolution. Therefore "shock and awe" could not have originated with Desert Storm.
 
#55,590
#55,590
DonjoVol said:
I did read. And if you did you would see that the author stated "shock and awe" was used by the Roman Legions and in the Haitian Revolution. Therefore "shock and awe" could not have originated with Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
Then you canā€™t comprehend. Shock and awe is a term. The authors actually went more to the more accurate Rapid Dominance. And thatā€™s what MG clearly pointed to as the meaning. Not the idiotic infrastructure and mass civilian casualties that you smooth brain stooges incorrectly threw out. The paper even addresses minimizing civilian casualties. It describes various doctrines throughout time where you attack the opponent persistently and in a focused manner and do not relent. The most recent example of a war as analyzed for the US was Desert Storm. They also referenced a few other lower intensity conflicts relevant to the US.

You smooth brains are going all in on background/prologue filler info and ignoring the analysis specific to Desert Storm. I even quoted a conclusion paragraph which specifically focused on Desert Storm. Which obviously conflicts with YOUR assertion that the paper doesnā€™t reference Desert Storm which you are clearly wrong on.

And the most hilarious part of all this is Iā€™ve dragged your parsing pedantic idiotic ass on for two pages or more now watching you try to eek some hollow victory out of this stupid meaningless point since youā€™ve completely given up on the initial callout that started this all. And Iā€™ve enjoyed the hell out of watching you try to sell this completely irrelevant point šŸ˜‚šŸ¤”

I found the paper when I posted my first reply to Moe calling him a liar. But I posted the Forbes article instead so that you stooges would have to do your own digging on origin paper. Iā€™ve pretty much read all of it and my assertions are in line with the paper.
 
#55,591
#55,591
NorthDallas40 said:
Then you canā€™t comprehend. Shock and awe is a term. The authors actually went more to the more accurate Rapid Dominance. And thatā€™s what MG clearly pointed to as the meaning. Not the idiotic infrastructure and mass civilian casualties that you smooth brain stooges incorrectly threw out. The paper even addresses minimizing civilian casualties. It describes various doctrines throughout time where you attack the opponent persistently and in a focused manner and do not relent. The most recent example of a war as analyzed for the US was Desert Storm. They also referenced a few other lower intensity conflicts relevant to the US.

You smooth brains are going all in on background/prologue filler info and ignoring the analysis specific to Desert Storm. I even quoted a conclusion paragraph which specifically focused on Desert Storm. Which obviously conflicts with YOUR assertion that the paper doesnā€™t reference Desert Storm which you are clearly wrong on.

And the most hilarious part of all this is Iā€™ve dragged your parsing pedantic idiotic ass on for two pages or more now watching you try to eek some hollow victory out of this stupid meaningless point since youā€™ve completely given up on the initial callout that started this all. And Iā€™ve enjoyed the hell out of watching you try to sell this completely irrelevant point šŸ˜‚šŸ¤”

I found the paper when I posted my first reply to Moe calling him a liar. But I posted the Forbes article instead so that you stooges would have to do your own digging on origin paper. Iā€™ve pretty much read all of it and my assertions are in line with the paper.
Click to expand...
Lol. You have not read pretty much all of it and you know it. If you did then you would find where the author used the Roman Legions and Haitian Revolution as examples of "shock and awe". The original debate was about the origin of the use of shock and awe. Which you and someone else claimed Desert Storm was the origin. Once again you were wrong. Just like you were on the pizza delivery drivers. Your research skills are very poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#55,592
#55,592
DonjoVol said:
Lol. You have not read pretty much all of it and you know it. If you did then you would find where the author used the Roman Legions and Haitian Revolution as examples of "shock and awe". The original debate was about the origin of the use of shock and awe. Which you and someone else claimed Desert Storm was the origin. Once again you were wrong. Just like you were on the pizza delivery drivers. Your research skills are very poor.
Click to expand...
Pedantic filler Curly. Thatā€™s what youā€™re left with. MG correctly called out Moeā€™s misapplication of the term. You stooges pivoted to the date meaningless filler when it was apparent you lost that initial salient point.

ā€œThis one timeā€¦ at band campā€¦ā€ šŸ¤”
 
#55,593
#55,593
NorthDallas40 said:
Pedantic filler Curly. Thatā€™s what youā€™re left with. MG correctly called out Moeā€™s misapplication of the term. You stooges pivoted to the date meaningless filler when it was apparent you lost that initial salient point.

ā€œThis one timeā€¦ at band campā€¦ā€ šŸ¤”
Click to expand...
And I simply proved that you and your fellow jobber were wrong in saying that shock and awe originated in Desert Storm. However, since you decided to take 2 to 3 pages today to troll then lets get back on topic here.

 
#55,597
#55,597
Just curious, but we are going into the one year anniversary of this conflict and the Russian economy is still humming along and the ruble is as strong as ever. I'm just wondering when the Ukrainiacs are going to draw a line in the sand and say "If the Russian economy/ruble doesn't crash by _________, then I will admit that these sanctions have been a failure".

Will you say June/July 2023? Next October? February 2024? When will these sanction begin to kick in and punish those damn Ruskies?
 
#55,599
#55,599
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just curious, but we are going into the one year anniversary of this conflict and the Russian economy is still humming along and the ruble is as strong as ever. I'm just wondering when the Ukrainiacs are going to draw a line in the sand and say "If the Russian economy/ruble doesn't crash by _________, then I will admit that these sanctions have been a failure".

Will you say June/July 2023? Next October? February 2024? When will these sanction begin to kick in and punish those damn Ruskies?
Click to expand...
They are punishing every day Russians and thereā€™s plenty of indications itā€™s happening too, regardless of you just ignoring it.

And this could all end today. Russia just withdraws its invaders and starts abiding by its diplomatic agreements. Yeahā€¦ we know. Never gonna happen because gay western death cult Nazis. šŸ¤”

Sanctions on Russia Are Working. Hereā€™s Why.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...he-sanctions-against-russia-arent-working-yet



Are the sanctions against Russia working?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top