There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
@WarChiefZeke as already pointed out the FBI never interviewed Ford. The fact that you referred to this several times as if this was something that had obviously happened demonstrates just what a sham the FBI investigation was. Kavanaugh himself was also not interviewed - and in a full investigation that would obviously have been done to probe why he lied about so many things in his testimony.
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
The Ramirez witnesses were interviewed. The Ford witnesses were interviewed.
Ford, herself, was not, which they had made clear. They planned to interview all the other witnesses- none who gave any hint to his guilt, by the way- who were not interviewed before a comittee, and that's what they did.
Which is at it should be. Why would the re-interview her, when they already had all her statements, unless she planned to change her story?
They leveraged her only supposedly valid evidence as a bargain made to lose rather than release it to the public *during her nationally televised interview or any time after*. That is credibility destroying, by recent precedent and by common sense and by anything other than partisanship.
I also love how the FBI conducts sham investigations now. Is it or is it not an organization to be trusted? Criticism of the Mueller investigation is not tolerated. These are people from the same institutions.
It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in.
Also you misunderstand, what I said was there wasn't perjury. Perjury doesn't mean you say you drink in moderation and really you drank alot, or that you never coached someone in a lie detector test when really you did. Well, the latter is iffy.
Ramirez has said there are a number of people she asked to be interviewed who were not.
As for perjury, that involves: - being under oath - wilfully lying - about a material matter
I don't think there's any question about being under oath or lying. As I said earlier, whether that was done wilfully (i.e. deliberately, with the intention of causing harm) is difficult to prove as that relates to a state of mind - although the sheer number of lies told suggest to me it was wilful.
As for materiality, that's again not really relevant in the context of a job interview. However, I think a number of the lies told were indeed material. That would include the level of alcohol consumption he took and whether he ever blacked out as a result (and he's on record in emails as saying he has done that, never mind the classmates that have confirmed that). Part of Kavanaugh's defense in Congress was that he'd never blacked out and therefore there was no possibility he could have assaulted someone without remembering that. If that statement was a wilful lie, that materially weakens his defense.
As I put in my earlier post though, while I think there's definitely an arguable case for perjury, I'm not convinced that Kavanaugh would be convicted. I am convinced though that that is not relevant - his behavior, whether or not it amounts to perjury, is not appropriate for a judge of any sort, let alone a Supreme Court one.
You know, I was just reminded of something. Hillary Clinton fainted during the campaign because she attended a 9/11 memorial when she was sick with pneumonia. This caused endless speculation for weeks on end in the right-wing media that she was concealing some sort of life-threatening illness and that she was not up for the job.
Fast forward to today, where Trump can't even be bothered to get a few raindrops on him at a memorial service. And those same people likely don't give two shits. Apparently our macho, manly, tough guy President doesn't want to get whatever he calls that mop on the top of his head wet or he might have a fit. Meanwhile, here is what our northern neighbor said in his speech after getting rid of his umbrella:
“As we sit here in the rain, thinking how uncomfortable we must be these minutes as our suits get wet, and our hair gets wet...it’s all the more fitting that we remember on that day in Dieppe the rain wasn’t rain, it was bullets.”
Sarah Kendzior, a journalist whose expertise is authoritarian regimes, and has been REMARKABLY prescient about how the Trump Presidency would unfold, once had this to say about him:
"Serving one’s country is a sacrifice, and sacrifice terrifies Trump. The idea that one would risk oneself–out of love, loyalty, or duty–is alien to him."
Whenever I think of World War I, I always think back to high school freshman English class. Everyone else was assigned to read some S.E. Hinton book (pretty sure it was "Tex"), but our teacher took 3 of us aside and said she wasn't going to waste our time for the next few weeks on that and assigned us "All Quiet on the Western Front" instead. What an absolutely miserable existence these guys had in the trenches. And for what?? There has never been a more pointless global conflict that World War I, and it's aftermath led directly to it's even worse sequel.
I'll end this particular discussion for now by saying that being the President or the Prime Minister of a country isn't just about getting policy passed or our agenda put through whatever legislative body that country may have. Sometimes it's about showing up to represent the people of your country as a decent human being, and maybe even saying something insightful, touching, or profound every now and then that makes people think or feel something. Trump isn't just completely uninterested in this aspect of the job, he is wholly incapable of it.
You know, I was just reminded of something. Hillary Clinton fainted during the campaign because she attended a 9/11 memorial when she was sick with pneumonia. This caused endless speculation for weeks on end in the right-wing media that she was concealing some sort of life-threatening illness and that she was not up for the job.
Fast forward to today, where Trump can't even be bothered to get a few raindrops on him at a memorial service. And those same people likely don't give two shits. Apparently our macho, manly, tough guy President doesn't want to get whatever he calls that mop on the top of his head wet or he might have a fit. Meanwhile, here is what our northern neighbor said in his speech after getting rid of his umbrella:
“As we sit here in the rain, thinking how uncomfortable we must be these minutes as our suits get wet, and our hair gets wet...it’s all the more fitting that we remember on that day in Dieppe the rain wasn’t rain, it was bullets.”
Sarah Kendzior, a journalist whose expertise is authoritarian regimes, and has been REMARKABLY prescient about how the Trump Presidency would unfold, once had this to say about him:
"Serving one’s country is a sacrifice, and sacrifice terrifies Trump. The idea that one would risk oneself–out of love, loyalty, or duty–is alien to him."
Here's a President who wouldn't let a little weather stop him from honoring the troops. He didn't stay home and watch TV and tweet like an angry troll instead. President Obama begins his address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery
Sinema has now moved into a 1.5% lead. I don't see her relinquishing it at this point. Flipping John McCain's seat is a huge deal. They got another back from the Donnelly/McCaskill/Heitkamp losses (along with flipping the Heller seat in Nevada). This one seat may be the difference in flipping the Senate in two years.
Whenever I think of World War I, I always think back to high school freshman English class. Everyone else was assigned to read some S.E. Hinton book (pretty sure it was "Tex"), but our teacher took 3 of us aside and said she wasn't going to waste our time for the next few weeks on that and assigned us "All Quiet on the Western Front" instead. What an absolutely miserable existence these guys had in the trenches. And for what?? There has never been a more pointless global conflict that World War I, and it's aftermath led directly to it's even worse sequel.
I'll end this particular discussion for now by saying that being the President or the Prime Minister of a country isn't just about getting policy passed or our agenda put through whatever legislative body that country may have. Sometimes it's about showing up to represent the people of your country as a decent human being, and maybe even saying something insightful, touching, or profound every now and then that makes people think or feel something. Trump isn't just completely uninterested in this aspect of the job, he is wholly incapable of it.
Whenever I think of WW1 I think of both my Grandfathers. One served in N.Africa (got a wonderful photograph of him on a mule) and the other was in the trenches in Normandy. The Grandad in Normandy, had his lungs buggered up by the gas (or it might have been the smoking, he always said it was the gas). Or my Aunty Glad who lost two sweethearts, one she was engaged to, consequently she didn't marry until she was much older and didn't have children. Her eventual husband, Uncle Will, had a glass eye which fascinated me as a child, he was in the medical corps. Or Uncle Sid who used a stick because his leg was injured.
You don't have the right and show immense disrespect to catagorise their sacrifice as being pointless. What was the choice? Let Germany do then what it tried to do (and nearly suceeded) in WW2? And as there is no alternative version of history, what makes you so certain that not fighting WW1 wouldn't have had much worse consequences?
You cannot apply your judgement, using the benefit of hindsight, as to what was "pointless" to those men and women. They believed in Britain, and they believed in the Empire, and they volunteered to fight for their country to preserve what they believed this country had accomplished and to pass on that legacy to their children. They are not here to defend themselves or the actions they took.
Then you use the backdrop of the sacrifices of WW1 to have (yet another) a pop at Trump. You think that's respectful?
Whenever I think of World War I, I always think back to high school freshman English class. Everyone else was assigned to read some S.E. Hinton book (pretty sure it was "Tex"), but our teacher took 3 of us aside and said she wasn't going to waste our time for the next few weeks on that and assigned us "All Quiet on the Western Front" instead. What an absolutely miserable existence these guys had in the trenches. And for what?? There has never been a more pointless global conflict that World War I, and it's aftermath led directly to it's even worse sequel.
I'll end this particular discussion for now by saying that being the President or the Prime Minister of a country isn't just about getting policy passed or our agenda put through whatever legislative body that country may have. Sometimes it's about showing up to represent the people of your country as a decent human being, and maybe even saying something insightful, touching, or profound every now and then that makes people think or feel something. Trump isn't just completely uninterested in this aspect of the job, he is wholly incapable of it.
Whenever I think of WW1 I think of both my Grandfathers. One served in N.Africa (got a wonderful photograph of him on a mule) and the other was in the trenches in Normandy. The Grandad in Normandy, had his lungs buggered up by the gas (or it might have been the smoking, he always said it was the gas). Or my Aunty Glad who lost two sweethearts, one she was engaged to, consequently she didn't marry until she was much older and didn't have children. Her eventual husband, Uncle Will, had a glass eye which fascinated me as a child, he was in the medical corps. Or Uncle Sid who used a stick because his leg was injured.
You don't have the right and show immense disrespect to catagorise their sacrifice as being pointless. What was the choice? Let Germany do then what it tried to do (and nearly suceeded) in WW2? And as there is no alternative version of history, what makes you so certain that not fighting WW1 wouldn't have had much worse consequences?
You cannot apply your judgement, using the benefit of hindsight, as to what was "pointless" to those men and women. They believed in Britain, and they believed in the Empire, and they volunteered to fight for their country to preserve what they believed this country had accomplished and to pass on that legacy to their children. They are not here to defend themselves or the actions they took.
Then you use the backdrop of the sacrifices of WW1 to have (yet another) a pop at Trump. You think that's respectful?
That's a fascinating version of what I said, but whatever. But I am glad someone appointed you the sole judge of what a respectful post is. I missed that memo but better late than never on receiving that information.
I'll go even further. Every death in Vietnam was pointless as well, and my uncle died there. Arguing that saying a solider's sacrifice in war was pointless is tantamount to disrespecting what they went through is the same bullshit I heard for 6 years straight during the Bush Administration. I had half a decade of that charge thrown at me, so this is water off my back. Playing the "if you don't agree with the war you don't respect the troops" card is the oldest trick in the book. It's tired and it hasn't worked on me for quite some time. I got my vaccination for that during the Iraq War. So I can swallow a whole cup of it if you'd like.
World War I did nothing to stop or delay the Holocaust. In fact, it pushed it forward. Hitler came to rise in part due to resentment over the Treaty or Versailles and the economic strain caused by the immense indemnity on Germany. A diplomat who criticized the treaty explicitly predicted that another war would happen in a generation, and he was exactly right.
The only thing victory over Germany accomplished was to end the war; the Treaty of Versailles otherwise had no positive side effects. The only point to WW1 was ending the war.
Things would have been better if they had ended the war with a basic armistice. Most deaths were indeed pointless for the simple reason that the military leadership on all sides was incredibly incompetent and did not understand the new realities of French warfare, and therefore sent countless men on hopeless suicide charges that were doomed to failure because trench warfare gave defenders massive tactical advantages.
World War I did nothing to stop or delay the Holocaust. In fact, it pushed it forward. Hitler came to rise in part due to resentment over the Treaty or Versailles and the economic strain caused by the immense indemnity on Germany. A diplomat who criticized the treaty explicitly predicted that another war would happen in a generation, and he was exactly right.
The only thing victory over Germany accomplished was to end the war; the Treaty of Versailles otherwise had no positive side effects. The only point to WW1 was ending the war.
Things would have been better if they had ended the war with a basic armistice. Most deaths were indeed pointless for the simple reason that the military leadership on all sides was incredibly incompetent and did not understand the new realities of French warfare, and therefore sent countless men on hopeless suicide charges that were doomed to failure because trench warfare gave defenders massive tactical advantages.
It also started because an assassination set off a domino effect of conflicting alliances that basically forced countries large and small to take sides against one another. Which is frankly why the European Union, which is attempting to be destroyed by the populist right all over Europe and Putin, has been so fundamental in preventing ANOTHER global conflict. Because it basically boils down to the fact that you aren't likely to get into an armed conflict with countries you are intricately locked into business and economic well-being with. There were two wars that almost destroyed the continent within a 25 year time span. It's been nearly 75 years and nothing remotely similar has broken out since it was formed.
This (admittedly very truncated) article breaks down the conflicting alliances that set off a chain reaction after the assassination of the Archduke, and then goes into the usual causes of pointless slaughter, namely imperialism and mindless nationalism:
To clarify: World War I's failure to accomplish anything does not mean that the suffering experienced by its soldiers isn't important. The soldiers' suffering is the most important result of that war; it impacted them far more than anything else. My point (and I'm sorry that this sentence is hard to word clearly) is that the suffering of the soldiers is as much "a crime committed against them by incompetent world leaders" as it is "a sacrifice made out of patriotism."
I do not question the motives of the soldiers who fought in that war, and I'd like to highlight just how much they lost in the war. But the military leadership in WW1 was fundamentally ignorant of the realities of trench warfare, and that resulted in countless deaths that yielded no material gains on the battlefield.
It's clear to me that @jjstraka34's original post was not suggesting that the soldiers actions were pointless, but that there was no clear cause to have a war in the first place. I agree absolutely about that.
The war, unlike WWII, was not in support of any sort of moral principles. The aims of all the countries involved were essentially economic, i.e. it was a squabble for resources by countries that already had plenty of those. In most situations a clash between such aims would not have led to war. However, in the period prior to WWI there had been an increase in nationalism and military spending and the construction of a series of treaties that meant that any small conflict was liable to spiral out of control.
In addition to a lack of appreciation of the changed military realities that @semiticgod refers to, leaders of all countries failed to understand in advance the impact a wide-ranging conflict would have on all aspects of the life of their country, i.e. it would not be just a battle between armed forces, but require a redirection of the efforts of whole populations. That lack of understanding of the consequences meant they drifted into a war that they would probably have avoided if they had realized in advance what the costs would be.
To me it seems obvious that the costs of a future major world conflict would be at least as great as WWI or WWII and potentially far more so (if weapons of mass destruction were widely used for instance). However, there are at least some signs in the world today of the same sorts of warning signs as were present prior to WWI - with increasing nationalism, higher military spending and arguing over economic resources. The world survived another of this type of period in the Cold War relatively unscathed, but there were certainly moments when a wider conflict came close to starting and I would hope that leaders of all countries bear in mind there is still a possibility of drifting into war as a result of arguments over pretty minor issues.
Reading that over before posting it I suspect some people might think I am advocating an appeasement type approach. That's not the case. I'm happy to take firm action in support of clear goals - for instance I would have supported stronger action over the Russian interventions in Ukraine. I would like to see though constant efforts to reduce military threats rather than escalate them. The US and Russia for instance are currently in the process of dismantling a series of arms control agreements. From the US perspective that appears to be far more to do with China than Russia (concerns that they are not limited in the same way). If that's the concern, the best way to address that would be to negotiate to bring China into the agreements rather than scrapping them entirely. Such negotiations are overdue anyway even between the US and Russia as existing treaties don't really take account of the changes to warfare in the Space age. To that extent we're in danger of falling into the same trap as the WWI leaders of not appreciating the dangers of the way in which new technology alters previously understood strategic postures.
World War I did nothing to stop or delay the Holocaust. In fact, it pushed it forward. Hitler came to rise in part due to resentment over the Treaty or Versailles and the economic strain caused by the immense indemnity on Germany. A diplomat who criticized the treaty explicitly predicted that another war would happen in a generation, and he was exactly right.
The common association of that quote was actually with Ferdinand Foch, the supreme allied commander in the whole war (He was the WW1 version of Eisenhower). Interestingly, his views on the treaty dont really match our common understanding of the treaty. His criticism was that the Treaty of Versailles wasnt punitive enough. He believed that the Empire of Germany should be utterly destroyed and dismembered. Putting the blame and the enormous indemnity upon Germany while leaving it mostly intact was the source of his concern - not necessarily that it was too punitive.
That quote: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He said that in 1919. WWII broke out in 1939.
Ferdinand Foch was an interesting figure. I read his memoirs for an extra credit assignment in my Modern French History class at University,
The world survived another of this type of period in the Cold War relatively unscathed, but there were certainly moments when a wider conflict came close to starting and I would hope that leaders of all countries bear in mind there is still a possibility of drifting into war as a result of arguments over pretty minor issues.
We came closer during the Cuban Missile Crisis to the brink of nuclear war than I think most people appreciate even to this day. Kennedy messed up royally by approving the Bay of Pigs operation, but what it DID do was make him utterly wary and skeptical of his military advisers. And when they were pushing him toward the point of no return with Khrushchev, both men kept their cool under what I imagine was the most pressure a leader could possibly be under. If the American military had gotten their way at that time, we might not even be here.
I think you're being a bit uncharitable, and looking through the lens of hindsight. Trench warfare had been around in some form or other for half a century before WWI. Ever since effective rifling made firearms passably accurate (in the 1860s, IIRC), the traditional method of winning battles - attacking and defeating the enemy soldiers - was no longer valid. The defense advantage was simply too massive. So, put yourself in the shoes of a military commander of the time: your country has got itself into a war, and your superiors have sent you to this or that theater of battle... what do you do? What does an incredibly competent military leader do? Even in hindsight I don't see a clear answer. You need to fight a battle, you need to win the battle, but you can't attack the enemy. You can't even allow your men to be on level ground.
Trenches certainly existed in this period of time (19th century, Civil War. Franco-Prussian War, etc) but I dont think it would be accurate to compare the form of warfare in the 1860s and 1870s to 1905 and 1914. Clausewitz's interpretation of the Napoleonic doctrine of warfare was still considered the foremost in military strategy in this time. Essentially, this strategy was one of maneuver followed by pitched battles (Commonly known as a Strategy of Annihilation). Simply said, Napoleon's objective was to maneuver his army into the most advantageous position possible, fight a pitched battle with the intent of annihilation his enemies's military capacity in one move. (Side note: It then follows why Russia was so successful in defeating Napoleon eventually - by preventing that pitched battle, Napoleon could never destroy Russia's military capacity).
This doctrine of warfare persisted through the American Civil War and into the Franco Prussian war. Really, the only time it started falling off was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904. It was at this time that it became clear that Maneuver and Annihilation was replaced by Entrenchment and Attrition. The military commander on the western front were slow to recognize the change. Commanders like Haig and Joffre werent particularly quick to abandon 100+ years of military strategy, even if the writing was on the walls. In that regard, I'd agree that some of the military commanders of WW1 were incompetent
Some political scientists called it the "cult of the offensive," the belief that victory in war depended on making the first move and establishing the terms and location of combat. That held true for many years, but innovations like the machine gun made trenches virtually unassailable.
The reason we fault military leaders for not recognizing this new reality is that ordinary soldiers were perfectly aware of the hopelessness of a charge across no man's land, and many soldiers were executed for cowardice when they turned back from a suicide mission. Ordinary soldiers were also familiar with the conditions of shell shock, but leaders at the time viewed the concept with skepticism.
This isn't just hindsight that people realized long after the war was over. This information was fully available to military leaders at the time; they simply failed to act upon it.
I agree the machine gun was extremely important in changing the balance between offense and defense. The more static conditions that resulted in led to improved trenching and terrain obstacles (like barbed wire) that further reinforced that. In that context it's hard to see battles like the Somme as anything but stupid. While there is a clear logic to the idea of massing an unstoppable force before launching an attack, there had already been a couple of years of war to demonstrate that the attackers in that situation would not in fact be an unstoppable force.
A better response would have been to use different tactics. There clearly were examples of that, e.g. the mining operation at Messines and the tank attack at Cambrai. Both of those were extremely successful attacks - but neither brought the gains they could have done as the commanders had not sufficiently considered what to do if the attacks were successful.
Yes, the strategy of maneuver-then-engage-in-pitched-battle (defined in extremely broad strokes) was also very effective for the Romans 2,000 years earlier. Massive defensive advantages frustrated that strategy, and made armed conflict less decisive, which resulted in immense suffering. (Again extremely broadly, you saw something similar a few centuries earlier with siege warfare.) More than saying commanders on the western front were slow to recognize the change, I would say that people for 50 years had been slow to recognize the change, and WWI is what finally caused military commanders everywhere to wake up to it.
I guess the disagreement was that I dont think there was a period of 50 years in which it could have been foretold that war was on the trajectory that would lead to World War 1 style conflict. 50 years earlier is the American Civil War, and that was clearly not fought in a manner resembling WW1. I dont think there were any lessons in the American Civil War that suggested where warfare would be in 50 years.
If you consider major military conflicts between industrialized nations, You essentially have: The American Civil War, The Seven Weeks war, Franco-Prussian War, Boer War 2, Russo-Japanese War, Balkan Wars, WW1 - in that order. (It's probably generous to consider the Balkan Conflicts are truly industrialized).
I've probably missed a few, but the first war that really seemed to start foretelling WW1 style conflicts was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904. The Boer war was too, maybe. I dont know enough about it.
I've probably missed a few, but the first war that really seemed to start foretelling WW1 style conflicts was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904. The Boer war was too, maybe. I dont know enough about it.
The Boer war was nothing like WWI. The Boers had initial successes after they declared war, but within a year the British brought in overwhelming numbers of reinforcements and the conflict quickly turned into a guerrilla war. There was never any use of trench warfare, though I think the British did make extensive use of barbed wire to try and restrict movements of guerrillas.
The Boer war was nothing like WWI. The Boers had initial successes after they declared war, but within a year the British brought in overwhelming numbers of reinforcements and the conflict quickly turned into a guerrilla war. There was never any use of trench warfare, though I think the British did make extensive use of barbed wire to try and restrict movements of guerrillas.
Fair enough. I thought I remember reading or hearing that Maxim guns were pretty effective in this conflict. That's more or less what I was referencing. I'd agree I dont think I ever heard there were large scale trenches built, or the like.
Just in relation to Armistice Day, I was surprised at the high turnout to a ceremony at the war memorial in my village this morning. That will largely be due to the coverage of the 100th anniversary, but there is generally a fair amount of awareness in the UK as a result of the poppy appeal and 2 minute silence (both those have effectively transformed into general commemorations rather than any longer being specific to WWI). I don't know how the level of awareness in the UK compares with other countries.
Edit: I see Macron has made a speech today describing nationalism as a "betrayal of patriotism" and referring to the need to work actively for peace. That chimes nicely with the thinking I was expressing this morning.
Just in relation to Armistice Day, I was surprised at the high turnout to a ceremony at the war memorial in my village this morning. That will largely be due to the coverage of the 100th anniversary, but there is generally a fair amount of awareness in the UK as a result of the poppy appeal and 2 minute silence (both those have effectively transformed into general commemorations rather than any longer being specific to WWI). I don't know how the level of awareness in the UK compares with other countries.
Edit: I see Macron has made a speech today describing nationalism as a "betrayal of patriotism" and referring to the need to work actively for peace. That chimes nicely with the thinking I was expressing this morning.
It's true.
Nationalism leads to xenophobia which inevitably leads to mistrust, misunderstanding, and ultimately to conflict.
For some leaders, that is the whole point. These leaders are so incredibly weak that they only hold on power is through fear of the OTHER. Once they start demonizing others as 'enemies of the people', the State is officially fostering hate. And ultimately it won't end well again because at some point the hater who has been scapegoating others will have to act.
I've been told by people who are better historians than I that the end of the Civil War (when production capacity of properly rifled firearms increased to the point of placing them in the hands of substantial numbers of soldiers) did in fact begin to resemble the trench warfare of WW1. The war was already moving toward being over by then; but apparently in some of the later battles you could (with hindsight of course) get a glimpse of what was to come in Europe.
One of my two degrees is in History. Admittedly, it specialized in French History predominately (with some flexing into Abraham Lincoln), but not the Civil War. My guess is that we could look at the campaigns run by Ulysses S Grant in 1864 as moving more towards the attritional rather than annihilation based conflict. In this way, I suppose you could see parallels between Verdun and those campaigns, where the explicit goal was to wear down the opposing side through constant engagement than to simply win one big battle and rout the army off the field.
Comments
As for perjury, that involves:
- being under oath
- wilfully lying
- about a material matter
I don't think there's any question about being under oath or lying. As I said earlier, whether that was done wilfully (i.e. deliberately, with the intention of causing harm) is difficult to prove as that relates to a state of mind - although the sheer number of lies told suggest to me it was wilful.
As for materiality, that's again not really relevant in the context of a job interview. However, I think a number of the lies told were indeed material. That would include the level of alcohol consumption he took and whether he ever blacked out as a result (and he's on record in emails as saying he has done that, never mind the classmates that have confirmed that). Part of Kavanaugh's defense in Congress was that he'd never blacked out and therefore there was no possibility he could have assaulted someone without remembering that. If that statement was a wilful lie, that materially weakens his defense.
As I put in my earlier post though, while I think there's definitely an arguable case for perjury, I'm not convinced that Kavanaugh would be convicted. I am convinced though that that is not relevant - his behavior, whether or not it amounts to perjury, is not appropriate for a judge of any sort, let alone a Supreme Court one.
Fast forward to today, where Trump can't even be bothered to get a few raindrops on him at a memorial service. And those same people likely don't give two shits. Apparently our macho, manly, tough guy President doesn't want to get whatever he calls that mop on the top of his head wet or he might have a fit. Meanwhile, here is what our northern neighbor said in his speech after getting rid of his umbrella:
“As we sit here in the rain, thinking how uncomfortable we must be these minutes as our suits get wet, and our hair gets wet...it’s all the more fitting that we remember on that day in Dieppe the rain wasn’t rain, it was bullets.”
Sarah Kendzior, a journalist whose expertise is authoritarian regimes, and has been REMARKABLY prescient about how the Trump Presidency would unfold, once had this to say about him:
"Serving one’s country is a sacrifice, and sacrifice terrifies Trump. The idea that one would risk oneself–out of love, loyalty, or duty–is alien to him."
George Price, the last soldier killed during WW1 which happened at 10:58, 2 minutes prior to peace:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/george-price-first-world-war-last-soldier-killed-1.4898387
I'll end this particular discussion for now by saying that being the President or the Prime Minister of a country isn't just about getting policy passed or our agenda put through whatever legislative body that country may have. Sometimes it's about showing up to represent the people of your country as a decent human being, and maybe even saying something insightful, touching, or profound every now and then that makes people think or feel something. Trump isn't just completely uninterested in this aspect of the job, he is wholly incapable of it.
Mitch McConnell To Block Bill To Protect Robert Mueller
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/09/mitch-mcconnell-protect-robert-mueller.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0Ji9o1PBL39LEA6Pa0sxjgU2gzxgM_O1Jxl-ZkeLkBFEgd4WLQjjoPFhoPostal facility locked down by pro-Trump mail bomber may have ‘thousands’ of ballots from Democrat-heavy district
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/postal-facility-locked-pro-trump-mail-bomber-may-thousands-ballots-democrat-heavy-district/?fbclid=IwAR2QTB7fjxxIziUy9Dv9yXFqF7g4topoc9QbRd-PpsAsqjH4h6cJj-pOtzwPresident Obama begins his address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery
Kamala Harris Is Effectively Draining Money from Stacey Abrams
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/11/kamala-harris-is-effectively-stealing-money-from-s.html?fbclid=IwAR0JXEEUbCf_9LWwrbbucq6ptx0xYxA50L_3qQKZqm58Xv529Htv29AkkDk56,000 voters in Illinois House district preferred Holocaust denier to moderate Democrat
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/07/holocaust-denier-neo-nazi-arthur-jones-chicago-illinois-dan-lipinski/1918933002/?fbclid=IwAR38MoytRllMxRIjIoGiKPgkp1CFANFssNWXYBb1RQRj2YpjyV4JSDxTkvcWinston Churchill’s grandson rips Trump for canceling World War I cemetery visit over poor weather
https://mic.com/articles/192404/trump-world-war-i-ceremony-france#.BQnn8g8JtAs Florida Races Narrow, Trump And Scott Spread Claims Of Fraud Without Evidence
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/666018707/trump-scott-spread-claims-of-voter-fraud-as-florida-race-narrows?fbclid=IwAR3_jqB7lJVrnHPTfauB9BFdOP2rLlo_vqCD0P9roluCZbuoHYu00kwNTf0Twitter calls for Sarah Sanders to resign after sharing doctored video of Jim Acosta
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/twitter-calls-sarah-sanders-resign-sharing-doctored-video-jim-acosta-180143053.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&fbclid=IwAR2V7IPImgZQzHLB5GT5ZzrqOJkRbiOd0gjIRMJmXExDUliFRRnQfLJT1coFeds Now Have Evidence Trump Broke the Law to Become President. Will Whitaker Bury It?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-now-have-evidence-trump-broke-the-law-to-become-president-will-whitaker-bury-it?fbclid=IwAR11EQRbSDzGkRMasE4JRi3uQ7SIJUnLBShkh9nFZTXIHT4i2djFF1odrX4Tucker Carlson Allegedly Involved in Assault of Gay Immigrant
https://hillreporter.com/tucker-carlson-allegedly-involved-in-assault-of-gay-immigrant-13853/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3ADYYESyrl1NYc2mgBPzOTKMDyiNaW3NWyNNwcmgxHzxxPTlY7FuepYMQWorld leaders laugh at Donald Trump as he brags about his achievements – video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/sep/25/world-leaders-laugh-at-donald-trump-as-he-brags-about-his-achievements-video?fbclid=IwAR0Y2HcLy0ZpglWNRzmVORYbGPOVesK7fPtH_lX4er03y7_9pmjdeyVQo8sTrump calls court block on Keystone oil pipeline 'a disgrace'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-court-halts-construction-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-072826935.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_12&fbclid=IwAR1R0Mkwr0DFQEEmDL96vLJf6AlhnVTxOMVuEMmSLUR2mhZ_D8goFNgV0M8Deployed Inside the United States: The Military Waits for the Migrant Caravan
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/us/deployed-inside-the-united-states-the-military-waits-for-the-migrant-caravan.htmlACLU sues Trump administration over asylum changes
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/aclu-sues-trump-administration-over-asylum-changes/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2pVMFryE9iOxsz1Dz_JgmLYXPeAzn1pPC4ZeKxV5lPw_LtP1kgwELT4yoThe Dominican Republic took in Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler while 31 nations looked away
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-11-09/dominican-republic-took-jewish-refugees-fleeing-hitler-while-31-nations-looked?fbclid=IwAR3VmN2oaWvLMORlY_IG0SCn8_vqq1fym5pZbbqH-3npmBfdtklKw1MiUv0Lindsey Graham Awkwardly Tries To Walk Back Vow To Unleash 'Holy Hell' On Trump
Color me SO not surprised...https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-graham-awkwardly-tries-walk-073954875.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_12&fbclid=IwAR1k94gN-NkVh_rgbPuqWjfmzkPGsVWK1i-Qs98CAONepwCG1V60mdO3BDY
VA secretary has begun planning budget cuts requested by Trump
https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/va-secretary-has-begun-planning-budget-cuts-requested-by-trump-1.556017?fbclid=IwAR0HRMUboQXjXvUK6IhY1_gu3P8f-4RNe7nxBiFfE7IPoaO18wRzh3ptNb4Here's how you can help Camp Fire victims in Paradise and Butte County
https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2018/11/09/camp-fire-how-you-can-help-victims/1942862002/?fbclid=IwAR2shet8Lnnp7MeD3m2speAqIgBWsaTscjH_hGaPd5nj7ttxLla1nsaNLkYSinema widens lead over McSally in Arizona Senate race
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416033-dem-sinema-widens-lead-over-mcsally-in-arizona-senate-race?fbclid=IwAR0Ukzbf-X-fhyjusciarIxVC9ITOY7YUj_IuVrBkLgP3spIsEKSXR4uFCASinema has now moved into a 1.5% lead. I don't see her relinquishing it at this point. Flipping John McCain's seat is a huge deal. They got another back from the Donnelly/McCaskill/Heitkamp losses (along with flipping the Heller seat in Nevada). This one seat may be the difference in flipping the Senate in two years.
You don't have the right and show immense disrespect to catagorise their sacrifice as being pointless.
What was the choice?
Let Germany do then what it tried to do (and nearly suceeded) in WW2?
And as there is no alternative version of history, what makes you so certain that not fighting WW1 wouldn't have had much worse consequences?
You cannot apply your judgement, using the benefit of hindsight, as to what was "pointless" to those men and women.
They believed in Britain, and they believed in the Empire, and they volunteered to fight for their country to preserve what they believed this country had accomplished and to pass on that legacy to their children.
They are not here to defend themselves or the actions they took.
Then you use the backdrop of the sacrifices of WW1 to have (yet another) a pop at Trump.
You think that's respectful?
That's a fascinating version of what I said, but whatever. But I am glad someone appointed you the sole judge of what a respectful post is. I missed that memo but better late than never on receiving that information.
I'll go even further. Every death in Vietnam was pointless as well, and my uncle died there. Arguing that saying a solider's sacrifice in war was pointless is tantamount to disrespecting what they went through is the same bullshit I heard for 6 years straight during the Bush Administration. I had half a decade of that charge thrown at me, so this is water off my back. Playing the "if you don't agree with the war you don't respect the troops" card is the oldest trick in the book. It's tired and it hasn't worked on me for quite some time. I got my vaccination for that during the Iraq War. So I can swallow a whole cup of it if you'd like.
The only thing victory over Germany accomplished was to end the war; the Treaty of Versailles otherwise had no positive side effects. The only point to WW1 was ending the war.
Things would have been better if they had ended the war with a basic armistice. Most deaths were indeed pointless for the simple reason that the military leadership on all sides was incredibly incompetent and did not understand the new realities of French warfare, and therefore sent countless men on hopeless suicide charges that were doomed to failure because trench warfare gave defenders massive tactical advantages.
This (admittedly very truncated) article breaks down the conflicting alliances that set off a chain reaction after the assassination of the Archduke, and then goes into the usual causes of pointless slaughter, namely imperialism and mindless nationalism:
https://www.historyonthenet.com/world-war-one-causes-2
Can anyone argue that THIS version of Europe was better than the one we have now??
I do not question the motives of the soldiers who fought in that war, and I'd like to highlight just how much they lost in the war. But the military leadership in WW1 was fundamentally ignorant of the realities of trench warfare, and that resulted in countless deaths that yielded no material gains on the battlefield.
The war, unlike WWII, was not in support of any sort of moral principles. The aims of all the countries involved were essentially economic, i.e. it was a squabble for resources by countries that already had plenty of those. In most situations a clash between such aims would not have led to war. However, in the period prior to WWI there had been an increase in nationalism and military spending and the construction of a series of treaties that meant that any small conflict was liable to spiral out of control.
In addition to a lack of appreciation of the changed military realities that @semiticgod refers to, leaders of all countries failed to understand in advance the impact a wide-ranging conflict would have on all aspects of the life of their country, i.e. it would not be just a battle between armed forces, but require a redirection of the efforts of whole populations. That lack of understanding of the consequences meant they drifted into a war that they would probably have avoided if they had realized in advance what the costs would be.
To me it seems obvious that the costs of a future major world conflict would be at least as great as WWI or WWII and potentially far more so (if weapons of mass destruction were widely used for instance). However, there are at least some signs in the world today of the same sorts of warning signs as were present prior to WWI - with increasing nationalism, higher military spending and arguing over economic resources. The world survived another of this type of period in the Cold War relatively unscathed, but there were certainly moments when a wider conflict came close to starting and I would hope that leaders of all countries bear in mind there is still a possibility of drifting into war as a result of arguments over pretty minor issues.
Reading that over before posting it I suspect some people might think I am advocating an appeasement type approach. That's not the case. I'm happy to take firm action in support of clear goals - for instance I would have supported stronger action over the Russian interventions in Ukraine. I would like to see though constant efforts to reduce military threats rather than escalate them. The US and Russia for instance are currently in the process of dismantling a series of arms control agreements. From the US perspective that appears to be far more to do with China than Russia (concerns that they are not limited in the same way). If that's the concern, the best way to address that would be to negotiate to bring China into the agreements rather than scrapping them entirely. Such negotiations are overdue anyway even between the US and Russia as existing treaties don't really take account of the changes to warfare in the Space age. To that extent we're in danger of falling into the same trap as the WWI leaders of not appreciating the dangers of the way in which new technology alters previously understood strategic postures.
That quote: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He said that in 1919. WWII broke out in 1939.
Ferdinand Foch was an interesting figure. I read his memoirs for an extra credit assignment in my Modern French History class at University,
This doctrine of warfare persisted through the American Civil War and into the Franco Prussian war. Really, the only time it started falling off was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904. It was at this time that it became clear that Maneuver and Annihilation was replaced by Entrenchment and Attrition. The military commander on the western front were slow to recognize the change. Commanders like Haig and Joffre werent particularly quick to abandon 100+ years of military strategy, even if the writing was on the walls. In that regard, I'd agree that some of the military commanders of WW1 were incompetent
The reason we fault military leaders for not recognizing this new reality is that ordinary soldiers were perfectly aware of the hopelessness of a charge across no man's land, and many soldiers were executed for cowardice when they turned back from a suicide mission. Ordinary soldiers were also familiar with the conditions of shell shock, but leaders at the time viewed the concept with skepticism.
This isn't just hindsight that people realized long after the war was over. This information was fully available to military leaders at the time; they simply failed to act upon it.
A better response would have been to use different tactics. There clearly were examples of that, e.g. the mining operation at Messines and the tank attack at Cambrai. Both of those were extremely successful attacks - but neither brought the gains they could have done as the commanders had not sufficiently considered what to do if the attacks were successful.
If you consider major military conflicts between industrialized nations, You essentially have: The American Civil War, The Seven Weeks war, Franco-Prussian War, Boer War 2, Russo-Japanese War, Balkan Wars, WW1 - in that order. (It's probably generous to consider the Balkan Conflicts are truly industrialized).
I've probably missed a few, but the first war that really seemed to start foretelling WW1 style conflicts was the Russo-Japanese war in 1904. The Boer war was too, maybe. I dont know enough about it.
Edit: I see Macron has made a speech today describing nationalism as a "betrayal of patriotism" and referring to the need to work actively for peace. That chimes nicely with the thinking I was expressing this morning.
Nationalism leads to xenophobia which inevitably leads to mistrust, misunderstanding, and ultimately to conflict.
For some leaders, that is the whole point. These leaders are so incredibly weak that they only hold on power is through fear of the OTHER. Once they start demonizing others as 'enemies of the people', the State is officially fostering hate. And ultimately it won't end well again because at some point the hater who has been scapegoating others will have to act.