Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's 4th Of July Parade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    What is so special about a tank? An F-18 over your head is an altogether more destructive and dangerous weapon than a tank on the ground.
    You...haven't actually read through this thread, have you.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    And I'm sure Americans understand the difference between tanks rolling past in a parade versus a Tiananmen like situation which has never happened in the US anyway. So what exactly are they afraid of?
    Part of it you yourself answered below. The other part is what Ironduke has said:

    Originally posted by Ironduke
    Lots of people watch planes takeoff, fly, and land. Millions of people could watch the same planes where I live, if they wanted. The planes are distant, not in your face, and they're more of an abstraction and curiosity if you're inclined to watch.

    When a tank rolls down the street in your neighborhood, that's a little more in your face and aggressive. Not abstract. More direct, up close, and personal.

    I don't care about the Donald's tank parade. But there is a difference between seeing a plane at some distance and having a tank in your face.
    Remember what you said about an F-18 over your head is more destructive than a tank? The F-18 will fly away eventually. The tank can sit there as long as it wants. That's the difference for the average civilian.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    Maybe much of the opposition has to do with who is ordering the parade - a president unlike any who came before and who has repeatedly expressed admiration for dictators and shown dictatorial tendencies.
    That is unquestionably a big part of the...shall we say "discomfort" that people have over this.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    I wonder if GWB or his father would have faced such opposition if he tried to do this.
    His father already did this. 1991. Post-Desert Storm victory parade. I recall a few raised eyebrows but in the wake of that stunning victory, there wasn't a lot of vocal opposition. But then, George HW Bush wasn't a dementia-addled authoritarian sociopath like Donald Trump.

    Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
    This talk about tanks on roads being verboten may be missing the point. Most common Americans would love to catch a glimpse of military hardware they don't get to see on a regular basis. There is an element of curiosity and novelty in it after all. If an actual parade with tanks rolling on the street had happened, a small percentage of people would have decried it as "Fascism!" while the rest would be too busy taking selfies with the cool looking tanks and posting them on instagram.
    And that's why we have museums, and plenty of 'em. Many of them struggling due to lack of funds. One wonders why.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Dementia of rolling tanks continues. There was only a static display. Anyone have a photo of the Abrams? I only saw photos of the Bradley’s on display.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
        Dementia of rolling tanks continues. There was only a static display. Anyone have a photo of the Abrams? I only saw photos of the Bradley’s on display.
        If you'd been actually reading these posts, you'd know that what we're talking about is a general discussion of "Why doesn't America roll AFV's through the streets on parade", with particular emphasis on French motivations for said parades.

        Dementia indeed....
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
          compared to having your capital taken three times, being forced to pay reparations and indemnities, being stripped of territory and colonial possessions, being economically plundered and having the fruits of your citizens' labor extracted, etc.
          War of 1812 to a tee. American cargo confiscated. American citizens press ganged into British service. No compensation was ever repaid. The fact that Americans chosed to forget does not mean those defeats were any less serious at the time.
          You're only replying to a part of my post. As such, what you've chosen to respond to is somewhat cherry-picked.

          Let's take a little bit more of that post:

          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
          Now if the British had sacked and burned Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, and New York City, burnt down half the plantations in the south, freed all the slaves, burnt half the farms in the north, and carried off a few million barrels of whiskey and a few million bales of cotton back to Liverpool, while enforcing indemnities and bankrupting the United States for the next two generations, that might have been humiliating.
          Now let's look at the results of the War of 1812 in a fuller context:
          • Britain stopped meddling in the American Northwest territories, stopped arming the Indian tribes on America's frontier, and abandoned its aspirations to create an Indian buffer state to box the United States in to the East Coast
          • America thus had a free hand to expand westward and pursue its "Manifest Destiny" without foreign interference
          • The US underwent crash industrialization as a result of the war, a course that led it to become to world's leading economy, which persists to this very day
          • The war ended with a major American victory at New Orleans
          • America wasn't bankrupted by the war, and came out of it better than it had gone in
          • As far as American politics are concerned, domestic perceptions regarding the conclusion of the War of 1812 led to the "Era of Good Feelings", in which America experienced its most non-partisan, non-polarized political era with the most unity the country may have ever seen
          • Except for a backwater swamp capital which nobody really cared about at the time, all major American cities escaped the war unscathed
          • Also, press gangings of Americans into the Royal Navy ended

          The way I see it, we drew a line in the sand in 1812. And ever since 1815, Britain remained firmly on the other side of it. If that's not winning, if that's not victory, I don't know what is.

          There may have been some "stretch goals" that America failed to accomplish. Conquest of Canada and whatnot. But we told Britain where the line was, and they never dared to cross it again.
          Last edited by Ironduke; 24 Jul 19,, 05:14.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
            What is so special about a tank? An F-18 over your head is an altogether more destructive and dangerous weapon than a tank on the ground
            I've seen plenty of F-18s, and V-22s, F-35s, F-22s, and a myriad of other fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft since I've lived in San Diego.

            Never once have I seen one of these aircraft engaged offensively against domestic targets. They takeoff, they fly, they land.

            Now, if a tank or armoured vehicle were to start rolling down the streets of San Diego, that would be an entirely different story.

            American police forces have used surplus armored vehicles doled out by the Pentagon in offensive operations against civilian targets. Yes, they were criminals, or suspected to be criminals, but they were civilians nonetheless. I don't know any of any instances in which US military aircraft have been used to bomb or strafe targets domestically.

            Therein lies one of the differences.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              You're only replying to a part of my post. As such, what you've chosen to respond to is somewhat cherry-picked.

              Let's take a little bit more of that post:


              Now let's look at the results of the War of 1812 in a fuller context:
              • Britain stopped meddling in the American Northwest territories, stopped arming the Indian tribes on America's frontier, and abandoned its aspirations to create an Indian buffer state to box the United States in to the East Coast
              • America thus had a free hand to expand westward and pursue its "Manifest Destiny" without foreign interference
              • The US underwent crash industrialization as a result of the war, a course that led it to become to world's leading economy, which persists to this very day
              • The war ended with a major American victory at New Orleans
              • America wasn't bankrupted by the war, and came out of it better than it had gone in
              • As far as American politics are concerned, domestic perceptions regarding the conclusion of the War of 1812 led to the "Era of Good Feelings", in which America experienced its most non-partisan, non-polarized political era with the most unity the country may have ever seen
              • Except for a backwater swamp capital which nobody really cared about at the time, all major American cities escaped the war unscathed
              • Also, press gangings of Americans into the Royal Navy ended

              The way I see it, we drew a line in the sand in 1812. And ever since 1815, Britain remained firmly on the other side of it. If that's not winning, if that's not victory, I don't know what is.

              There may have been some "stretch goals" that America failed to accomplish. Conquest of Canada and whatnot. But we told Britain where the line was, and they never dared to cross it again.
              Now who is cherry picking. The US declared war thinking the British and the Canadas were unprepared. The operational objectives was the conquest of the Canadas with 3 invasion armies. At the end of the war, the Canadas were no longer under threat and the British were able to land unopposed anywhere they chosed. The British still had a sizeable force on US soil and had captured Fort Bowyer with plans to attack Mobile Bay.

              The full might of the British Empire was not brought to bear and the US still had no answer to the Royal Navy. And the reaspn for the British stopped press ganging American citizens was that Napolean had lost and was exiled. When he returned, the British was worried about Waterloo, not blockading the French coast. The Treaty of Ghent stopped all offensive operations but a British force was still conducting combat operations on US soil beforfe they received word.

              Jackson was expecting 25,000 British troops at New Orleans which the British could have easily done. He had no answer.

              And we have our buffer. It's called Manitoba.

              And there was a winner of the War of 1812, the Canadas. The Canadian Nation was borned in that war. French Canada united with English Canada to defend the British Empire. In one voice, we've said without a doubt, we are not Americans. And I thank God for that. Else, Celine Dion would still be on my country soil.
              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Jul 19,, 07:18.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                Maybe much of the opposition has to do with who is ordering the parade - a president unlike any who came before and who has repeatedly expressed admiration for dictators and shown dictatorial tendencies.
                I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The opposition mentioned is merely partisan and that is why there is to and fro.

                Typical of the storms in a teacup the opposition concocts on a regular basis.

                They have displays from time to time and only when it wouldn't make sense to oppose. But a display for the sake of it is out.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  Now who is cherry picking.
                  I think everything I said in my last post was accurate. I understand you have a very Canadian perspective on this war, and I'm not saying you're wrong on the points you've made.

                  But what's the relevance to the subject at hand? We were on the subject of the humiliation experienced by nations who have been conquered, occupied, plundered, and whatnot. I was making a point based on my observation that nations that have experienced these things have a parade tradition, while those who don't, don't.

                  We know that France emerged from the Franco-Prussian War with revanchism dominating its politics and foreign policy for the next 43 years. A few years after the Prussians left Paris, the French started with the parades, which continues to this modern day.

                  Another example, post-WWI, the Germans developed quite the parade tradition as well.

                  These to me are attempts at portrayals of strength in light of past weaknesses and defeats.

                  There are no parallels between post-1815 America and post-1871 France. The US didn't emerge from the War of 1812 as a defeated nation. The US emerged in 1815 stronger than it was than it had gone in. The post-war settlement was favorable to the US. It may have been favorable to Britain and Canada as well, but it was favorable to the US.

                  From what I've taken from your posts, and I could be mistaken, but it seems you're trying to draw parallels where none exist.
                  Last edited by Ironduke; 24 Jul 19,, 15:10.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    The US emerged in 1815 stronger than it was than it had gone in. The post-war settlement was favorable to the US. It may have been favorable to Britain and Canada as well, but it was favorable to the US.
                    In what sense? Militarily, the strategic balance tilted even further to the British and the Canada side. That balance will not tilt towards the US until after the American Civil War. Industrially, trade with Europe resumed only because the Royal Navy allowed it. The Northern States who were never really pro-war resumed the lucrative trade with the Canadas from before the war. Your westward expansion was only allowed by the Lousiana Purchase. The British was concerned mainly with your northern expansion which was checked even in the relatively undefended Parrie Provinces. Most historians see it as a return to the status quo from before the war. That status quo was what allow the US to prosper, not the war itself.

                    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    From what I've taken from your posts, and I could be mistaken, but it seems you're trying to draw parallels where none exist.
                    I'm stating outright that your position that military parades is some form of dick measuring contest is out of whack. The US has her share of humilating defeats from the French and Indian Wars to Somalia. I've served with French soldiers. To say that when they march down Paris is somehow compensating for their shame is insulting. Both of our countries have sent contigents to march on Bastille Day. France and others have a right to feel proud of their military. Just because the US choose to demonstrate their pride in some other way does not mean the French and others feel shame instead of pride.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                      I've served with French soldiers. To say that when they march down Paris is somehow compensating for their shame is insulting.
                      Here's the thing: I've never said anything about what individual French soldiers, or the kids in line waiting for iPhones in Paris are thinking. Or any individual for that matter (with the exception of guesses at what's going on in Trump's psyche). You have. I'm not sure why you're saying I've said things I haven't.

                      I've spoken with regards to the greater national consciousness and psyche. Me being me, I know full well what I'm speaking of when I speak. If you want say I'm saying things I'm not, there's no basis for further discussion.
                      Last edited by Ironduke; 24 Jul 19,, 16:34.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        I've spoken with regards to the greater national consciousness and psyche. Me being me, I know full well what I'm speaking of when I speak. If you want say I'm saying things I'm not, there's no basis for further discussion.
                        There is no such thing as a national consciousness or psyche. It is the conditioning of individuals with an upbringing that reflects that culture. In the end, it is the people, individual human beings, who either feel shame or pride. The soldiers, the people lining up to watch them, and the politicians accepting the military salutes on Bastille Day feels no shame and all pride. Your basis is still out of whack.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          I was making a point based on my observation that nations that have experienced these things have a parade tradition, while those who don't, don't.
                          Poland does not, nor Ukraine this year - allegedly to "save money."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            I don't know any of any instances in which US military aircraft have been used to bomb or strafe targets domestically.
                            Does it need to be intentional?

                            https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/n...ew-jersey.html

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                              Poland does not, nor Ukraine this year - allegedly to "save money."
                              Poland has military parades all the time. Armed Forces Day on August 15th, the "Strong in Alliances" parade for Constitution Day on May 3rd this year (with US participation), the Independence Day parades on November 11th...

                              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              Another example, post-WWI, the Germans developed quite the parade tradition as well.
                              There wasn't really any parades in Germany streets until about 1929/1930, at least in larger cities; no larger-scale parades above say company size at all (there were usually some for troops at the end of larger-scale exercises, but that was out in the boonies). Reason for that of course being that by that time it hadn't even been ten years since the Freikorps had battled in German streets. With still much the same equipment.

                              Comment


                              • TopHatter and Ironduke, an average American citizen is not stupid enough to connect a Tank rolling in a frickin parade with the use of Armored vehicles by the police. Even half educated people in third world countries would be able to tel the difference. They understand the difference between the US Army and the local police and the fact that the Army is apolitical and has never been used against its own people, unless you count the Civil War. There has never been a Tiananmen like incident or anything close to it in the US.

                                Frankly I think this entire argument about Americans being scared of seeing tanks is a red herring. You kinda admitted the whole opposition is political and partisan and concentrated on Trump, since GHWB did not face anything more than raised eyebrows when he did it. I'm sure if Obama had done this, the Dems would have been Ok while the Republicans who called him a tyrant (Oh the hypocrisy!) would be the ones claiming that he was importing fascism into the US.

                                And now we have reached the point where in order to explain this opposition to parades people are resorting to claims that the only reason countries like France could possible like parades is because they are somehow compensating for their national inadequacy and shame about past defeats (unlike the totally undefeated US). The arrogance and sense of superiority inherent in this line of thinking is disturbing.
                                Last edited by Firestorm; 24 Jul 19,, 21:29.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X