Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's 4th Of July Parade

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

  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    There are many reasons a person may make a decision, some of which they are conscious of, others they are unaware of, and others they are self-deluded about.

    As for the reasons why Trump ran; I'm right, you're right, and there's probably ten other things people could come up with that are also right. At least each in part.
    No doubt about it, and of course it wasn't his first time running for President either, despite his usual lies to the contrary.

    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    In that video, you're looking at a man who has had his jimmies severely rustled, is feeling extreme humiliation, and is just barely containing apoplectic rage. Look at the way he rocks back and forth, in an infantile way, like some kind of autistic child.
    Ohhhh definitely. That rocking back and forth is a classic sign of stress.
    “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 Double Edge View Post
      I suppose you are reading more than i can here.

      Trump has to sit there and take it ?

      Yeah and so what.
      You made this observation, that's what:

      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      It was very gentle and genteel. He appeared to take it well.
      Ironduke was refuting that. Trump didn't take it well At All.
      “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
        And let's not forget that the USAF ALWAYS do dog and pony shows on 4 July. So, to say the US doesn't do these kind of show offs is false.
        Sir, we've already acknowledged repeatedly that air shows and fly-overs are common and popular here in the US, but also on a completely different level than armored vehicles rumbling through our city streets.

        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
        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.
        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Air shows are quite popular here as they are elsewhere, but AFV's in the streets bring up a bad taste in people's mouths.

        Americans aren't terribly fond of an overbearing military presence in their streets, regardless of the reason. Air shows, fine. Museums, fine. Tanks rumbling through the neighborhood, not fine.
        “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 TopHatter View Post
          Sir, we've already acknowledged repeatedly that air shows and fly-overs are common and popular here in the US, but also on a completely different level than armored vehicles rumbling through our city streets.
          That was not the point I was trying to make. The point was that the French sees tanks no differently than we see F18s. To the French (and the rest of the world), tanks on Bastille Day, is a sign of national pride, not compensation for a lack of victories in history. To state that Bastille Day is some sort of dick measuring contest is absurd.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • In my opinion, these parades are part and parcel of France's politique de grandeur. It is a sign of national pride, and compensatory for France's progressive diminution on both the European and world stages these last several hundred years.

            France was the dominant power in Europe for the better part of a thousand years. Diplomacy was conducted in French, foreign courts emulated French customs and practices, and France was the most heavily populated nation in Europe, intensively cultivated with the largest economy. England, Spain, Germany spent the better part of these thousand years as backwater regions, and the Italians were riven by division between city-states, where France could intervene at will.

            Hell, even the colloquial word for Europeans in most of the rest of the world, Faranj, Farang, Ferengi, Varangian, comes from the Franks.

            France was to Europe like China was to East Asia for this thousand year period. The Middle Kingdom, if you will. The Roman Emperor in Constantinople was even forced to accept the King of France as his equal.

            France has been progressively eclipsed as it emerged from the medieval era into the modern one. It won some and lost some in the last several hundred years, but its trajectory has been more of one of being on the backfoot, being weakened by, overshadowed, and overtaken by other powers.

            It spent the period of 1815 to 1945 in a state of general malaise, in which the country experienced no natural population growth among the native population, and only grew in population due to immigration from elsewhere in Europe. Half of France is descended from Belgians, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, and other mostly Catholic European immigrants from this 130-year period.

            I do think from general French attitudes, is that they have a high sense of self-importance that isn't entirely warranted by reality, and that their sense of grandeur (out of all proportion to their real capabilities) has only been made possible by the tolerance, accommodation, and the grudging willingness of the countries where real power lies to put up with it.

            France was allowed to have what Empire it was after 1815 by the grudging willingness of Britain to accommodate them, so long as France stayed content to play second fiddle and not seriously challenge Britain. France was allowed to dominate Germany post-WWII, and form the European Community, by the graciousness and grudging willingness of America and Britain to put up with it. To the extent France has exercised power internationally since 1815, it's because and to the extent they've been allowed to.

            They might technically be a great power, but they aren't as great as they'd like to think they are. And I do think their parades are just another aspect of the politique de grandeur.
            Last edited by Ironduke; 21 Jul 19,, 22:21.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Perhaps that's precisely why it didn't happen. It doesn't change the fact - it didn't happen. Elsewhere, humiliation, conquest, devastation, plundering, occupation - it did happen.
              Only if you measure your history from 1776 on. Before then, the British/American Colonies had their share of humilating defeats and being driven back by the First Nations. Not to mention distastrous defeats by the French.

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              98% of Americans don't know about the Burning of Washington. 97% don't know about the War of 1812.
              And what makes you think most French citizens know about previous occupations of Paris?

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Vietnam and Somalia are pretty small beans
              The same as Afghanistan and Isandlwana. Front page news respectively.

              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.

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              As far as contemporaneous attitudes are concerned, having a British flying column of ships and Marines burn a 14-year old capital set amidst swamp and plantations, with hardly any people living there, a capital city most of the country at the time was ambivalent about anyways, doesn't really rank up there with what Russia, China, France, the Arab states, Turkey, Italy, Spain, or India have gone through.
              Again, at what point in history do you start measuring? Most certainly the PRC and the USSR never saw their capitals occupied. Istanbul was last conquered by a Turk over another Turk. Modern day Istanbul was never conquered. Franco was able to keep Spain safe. If you want to go back further than that, then you must do the same with the Colonies.

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Given the sectionalism in the country at the time, and the attitudes toward a capital nobody really wanted in the first place, I'd say most Americans at the time didn't care. Many may have privately applauded the city's burning.
              Two British expeditionary force were able to land unopposed and dictated the location of battle. That's not an insignifcant military event.

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              And the US still came out of the War of 1812 stronger and in a better position than it had gone in. Even if there was no "winner".
              So was the Canadas and Great Britain.

              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Most US military displays that occur domestically are in large part a form of advertising, to make the military seem cool and appealing to potential recruits.
              What makes you think Bastille Day displays are any different? Our Guards march on 1 July and 4 July. Canadians and Americans have marched in Bastille Day parades. It's an honour to be invited to march in Paris and we certainly ain't showing off our dicks to the French.
              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 21 Jul 19,, 22:21.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                We've covered that already, remember?
                Yeah and the answers weren't satisfactory.

                1860 - 1939 is 80 years between visits. 1860 the two countries had not warmed up yet.

                Can go all the way to India in 1912 which is a further trip than to the states.

                Maybe the question is wrong. Does it really matter that the King didn't visit earlier.

                Visits by heads of state are symbolic and symbolic matters a lot in IR, that is where i was coming from. A way to gauge how important relationships are is by how often heads of state meet. Maybe this is a modern way of looking at things.

                The Brits managed their business for centuries using bits of papers on boats going across the world. They managed relations this way with every one.

                There had to be many visits going across by people in that period.

                As relations grew closer people to people interactions would increase.

                In the end this is what counts.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Jul 19,, 22:30.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                  They might technically be a great power, but they aren't as great as they'd like to think they are. And I do think their parades are just another aspect of the politique de grandeur.
                  Are you suggesting everyone is measuring their dicks by their military parades? Everybody else does it, including the Poles and Dutch. Again, even our Guards march on 1 July and 4 July. We may have a disdain for tanks but that does not mean that others do not want to feel proud of their armoured corps.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    You made this observation, that's what:



                    Ironduke was refuting that. Trump didn't take it well At All.
                    Opposition is known for coming up with false campaigns. Birther controversy is one such example and IMO this Russian collusion business is another. Some times these campaigns are easy to call out.

                    Trump is just going to have to like and lump it like any other opposition figure around the world when it happens.

                    It seems a real stretch to put so much weight into this one event don't you think.

                    Times i've heard Trump talk in the past, he seemed to critique the way administration of the day was doing things. Didn't matter which party. He always said he could do better.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jul 19,, 00:29.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Can go all the way to India in 1912 which is a further trip than to the states.
                      Well, George V did have the title of Emperor of India. He wasn't Emperor of the United States.

                      He went to India for a coronation ceremony. If I recall correctly, the reasoning for the creation of the title of Emperor/Empress of India was done to put the British monarch on an equal level of rank with the newly proclaimed Kaiser of Germany in the 1870s.

                      The Hohenzollerns had been promoting themselves up the ranks over the previous 200-300 years, from margrave to duke, to King in Prussia, to King of Prussia, and finally, Emperor of Germany.

                      The European monarchs put a lot of importance on ranks and titles back then. It had a lot to do on how they would be addressed, treated, received, where they sat at the table, the importance with which their ambassadors would be regarded, and all kinds of other silly stuff.

                      Given the international situation in 1911/12, it wouldn't surprise me if the trip to India for the coronation had more to do underscoring that the British monarch too was an emperor, and a very important person, and that by extension, the countries and empire he personified were also important.
                      Last edited by Ironduke; 22 Jul 19,, 00:54.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        1860 - 1939 is 80 years between visits. 1860 the two countries had not warmed up yet.
                        If you're counting 1860 then you also have to count Edward VIII's visits as Prince of Wales. 1919, 1920, 1924, 1927.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          1860 - 1939 is 80 years between visits. 1860 the two countries had not warmed up yet.
                          If you're counting 1860 then you also have to count Edward VIII's visits as Prince of Wales. 1919, 1920, 1924, 1927.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kato View Post
                            If you're counting 1860 then you also have to count Edward VIII's visits as Prince of Wales. 1919, 1920, 1924, 1927.
                            Bingo! that's more like it. Future heir to the throne works. Didn't stick at it for long as king but n/m
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jul 19,, 23:14.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              Well, George V did have the title of Emperor of India. He wasn't Emperor of the United States.

                              He went to India for a coronation ceremony. If I recall correctly, the reasoning for the creation of the title of Emperor/Empress of India was done to put the British monarch on an equal level of rank with the newly proclaimed Kaiser of Germany in the 1870s.

                              The Hohenzollerns had been promoting themselves up the ranks over the previous 200-300 years, from margrave to duke, to King in Prussia, to King of Prussia, and finally, Emperor of Germany.

                              The European monarchs put a lot of importance on ranks and titles back then. It had a lot to do on how they would be addressed, treated, received, where they sat at the table, the importance with which their ambassadors would be regarded, and all kinds of other silly stuff.

                              Given the international situation in 1911/12, it wouldn't surprise me if the trip to India for the coronation had more to do underscoring that the British monarch too was an emperor, and a very important person, and that by extension, the countries and empire he personified were also important.
                              I find it amusing he comes all the way to India to be declared emperor.

                              Couldn't be emperor in England ? nope, parliament and all that.

                              But Kaiser is Kaiser of Germany.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                                Sir, we've already acknowledged repeatedly that air shows and fly-overs are common and popular here in the US, but also on a completely different level than armored vehicles rumbling through our city streets.
                                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. 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?

                                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 wonder if GWB or his father would have faced such opposition if he tried to do this. 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.
                                Last edited by Firestorm; 23 Jul 19,, 01:22.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X