Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Ryan McBeth"
channel.
-
95
-
94
-
60
-
54
-
46
-
44
-
42
-
39
-
35
-
34
-
32
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
It’s something we should always keep in mind whenever we think we need to use force or threat of violence to further agendas, policies, or interests.
Years ago in my bad old days, I had to appear in court for being involved in a fight. It dawned on me during the proceedings that I was the bad guy in this case. I think the judge, the city attorney, and the victim actually saw the change in my face, and I got treated leniently at the end of the day. I really was remorseful because even if I didn’t swing first, I really did provoke the fight.
Maybe the other guy shared responsibility, but that was on him to figure out. I can only take care of my own mistakes and shortcomings.
Why am I telling you this? I guess because I can’t be a better person if I cling to the idea that I’m always right and justified. And I learned from this relatively minor incident to ask myself the question, “Am I in the wrong?” before it escalates.
However, I don’t know if this type of thinking even applies to moral monsters like Putin. They don’t really think in terms of good or bad. To them, bad is anyone or anything in their way. Truth is what they say it is, and lies are anything that contradicts the story they tell themselves. And they think everyone thinks like them, or are dumb not to think like them.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@Seth9809 of the convoy ambush videos I’ve seen, the first one (that we probably all saw first) was a large group of armored vehicles entering a town. It looked like many had pulled over and were idling or parked. To be frank, it looked like how a multi-car road trip would pull into a truck stop so everyone could stretch their legs, use the restrooms, and grab snacks and coffee. If there was a security perimeter, it wasn’t obvious.
Then the shelling starts, and it also looks like there might be an ATGM or two coming in from the side. A handful of vehicles were destroyed, and the rest didi-ed the fuck out of there the way they came. And they maintained spacing. Maybe not 100 or 50 meter spacing, but close to 50 m.
The other three or four that I can remember visually showed the Russian AFVs much better spaced and turrets pointed in different directions. They maintained space.
I think in the first week, the Russians were very sloppy, possibly because they didn’t expect resistance and hadn’t yet encountered it. Remember, in the first week, the Russians advanced rapidly in many areas because the defense hadn’t yet organized to contest the advance.
After 4 months, even if green troops are being poured in, I think the Russians have at least the basics squared away.
4
-
4
-
4
-
They’re not targeting the farmers, they’re targeting the farm. If you’re working in the building that day, it sucks to be you.
The blurry line is between international networks of activists and state sponsored farms. Or what about offshore contractors?
If I were red teaming Ryan, there’s some pretty obvious responses.
1) Work from home
2) put your troll farm/active measures facility in a third country
3) put it in the target country
Number 1 changes the math of collateral and unwanted damage. It introduces a lot more potential for blowback. Number 2 presents a diplomatic problem. If Russia puts its troll farms in China or India, the diplomatic consequences outweigh the intended result. And what if Russia is not operating the troll farms but is contracting the work to a third party? Number 3 presents a different set of problems. Maybe Russia contracts with a viral marketing firm operating out of Florida. There no way you can target them kinetically, and you’d have trouble shutting them down legally. Depending on how stacked the Supreme Court remains, you probably won’t be able to shut them down. Trolling and misinformation can still be considered protected speech.
As far as targeting individuals (which Ryan is not talking about), I have a solution. It’s called “rendition”. In this scenario, Team Ryan kidnaps the individual, spirits them to Guantanamo, and a tribunal decides their guilt or innocence. 😂
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stovedmatt5514 It’s ambiguous at best, and even if it was a white flag, it doesn’t mean a buttoned up tank commander can see it through the smoke. Even from our better view from above, it looks like a piece of white fabric stuck on a tree branch.
It’s too bad, but you don’t always get to surrender in the middle of a fight. You don’t get to call time out while someone is shooting at you. If you didn’t take the opportunity immediately after the shooting started, you’re just going to have to hold onto your ass until after and hope you survive long enough to surrender.
The smartest thing a Russian soldier can do is surrender at the first opportunity. It’s patriotic, too, as he’ll be able to help his country after it loses to Ukraine. Right now, the Russian soldier is throwing away his own life while helping Putin throw away the well being of Russia.
Speaking of “the Russian soldier” what was the deal with the lone soldier returning to the trench? Was he a one man OP or just out taking a crap? Or is a soldier taking a crap considered to be a one man OP? Fart twice, really loudly, if you see them coming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you even know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was? Do you know how it was resolved? Here is the shortest version that maintains accuracy: the U.S. put nuclear missiles in Turkey. In retaliation, the Soviet Union began putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. After a very dangerous stand off, the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and the U.S. removed the missiles from Turkey.
As far as engaging in weird hypotheticals, you’re already ignorant of Mexico’s relationship with the U.S. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Mexico is not a compliant ally of the U.S. and never has been. Just the same, your hypothetical is absurd and useless when you already have a perfectly good example which you yourself mentioned. Cuba.
Cuba is a very close neighbor of the U.S., slightly more than 100 miles from Florida. Despite Cuba becoming a communist country and aligning with the Soviet Union, the U.S. never invaded Cuba. It never attacked Cuba. The last military action the U.S. saw in Cuba was the Spanish American War, in which U.S. forces fought WITH Cuba against Spain for Cuban independence. The U.S. has had very unfriendly relations with Cuba since Fidel Castro deposed Bautista in 1959 (actually more like since 1960, when Fidel fully embraced the USSR as its patron), but they’ve been peaceful.
So there you have it. The U.S. has had an enemy on its doorstep for over 60 years now and has never invaded it.
If you want to bring up the Bay of Pigs, make sure you mentioned who actually invaded. Answer: Cubans, not the U.S. military.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@frf5000 There is one person at the top of the chain of command, who is the top civilian executive as well as the commander in chief of the armed forces. That person, the President, CAN send our country to war intentionally or unintentionally. However, it’s also true that Presidents have consulted with others and build some sort of consensus before doing so.
So your technically wrong. But the person you replied to, M Vega, is a dummy with no clue about how our constitutional government is supposed to work and has worked for over two centuries, and why we chose an executive branch distinct from the legislative branch back when the constitution was written.
He’s basically saying, “Isn’t anybody troubled that we have an elected leader, rather than a politburo? Gosh, I sure am!”
Going back to your being technically wrong, you’re also sort of right in practice. As I said, an American President has the authority. But that doesn’t mean he has absolute power. In a democracy it’s not enough to give an order, you have to have competent people willing to execute that order. If an order is completely insane, they can block it long enough for you to be legally relieved of command.
Our President doesn’t have absolute power and we have safeguards. I think that might have been what you wanted to say.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Occam’s razor tells us to go with the simplest possible answer, so I think you’re right. However, the romantic in me wants to believe that the missile was hacked, and I think there is an improbable but possible scenario, which is a hardware/firmware hack.
Imagine this—the factory that builds these missiles uses CPUs and circuit boards sourced outside of Russia. However, to pocket a few extra bucks, the buying manager buys some of the CPUs at a discounted price on the black market. The provenance is unknown. The buyer assumes they are stolen from the manufacturer or some other client or vendor. He has no idea through whose hands the components have passed and doesn’t care, so long as they test OK and they work.
Now imagine that some agency with the required capabilities and expertise, in some government with an adversarial relationship with Russia, inserts itself into that chain of custody. It could substitute a CPU (or whatever) that looks like the genuine component from the MFGR, but that contains hardwired instructions to misfire (or do whatever). The component is tested as normal, is used to build the missile, and voila, missile that flies back.
Did this happen? Probably not. I mean, why not just have it blow up in the rack? But as Russia seeks to replenish its inventory of high tech electronic components through a “parallel market”, they are at risk of receiving hacked hardware. And due to the general level of corruption in the Russian economy, I suspect that these trade networks already existed before the sanctions and were supplying components to the Russian arms industry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There’s some important political details regarding Abolition, Lincoln, and the Civil War that are missing. Sadly, these often don’t get covered in U.S. History classes before college, and I’m not sure how deeply they’re covered in introductory college courses.
First of all, the Republican Party was not unified on the question of slavery, and among those that favored abolition there was a variety of opinion on how to accomplish it. The moderate view was that it was on the way out—as long as it didn’t spread as new states were admitted it would become gradually less economically feasible. They were happy with the status quo. There were those that wanted compensation for slave owners. And there was a faction known as the “Radical Republicans” that wanted immediate abolition. The majority of Republicans did not.
In the election of 1860, Lincoln promised that he would not support abolition. Abolition was not part of the Republican Party platform. Lincoln was sensitive to the politics in some swing states where slavery was still legal, such as Maryland and Delaware.
Despite this, the South seceded, and did so violently. They fired the first shots (most famously in Fort Sumter, but also throughout the South were there were Federal bases and civilian installations). Lincoln’s reassurances weren’t enough. The Southern Democrats wanted to extend slavery into the new territories in the West. They wanted to roll back abolition in those states that had abolished slavery by preserving the “property rights” of slave owners who traveled with their slaves in abolitionist states. And they wanted to preserve the right of slave owners to catch escaped slaves in the North (cf. the Fugitive Slave Act). With Lincoln elected President, their chances to accomplish these goals were much less, if not impossible.
Another matter that few people talk about is what would happen if the South had been allowed to secede and recognized. War between North and South would still have been inevitable because of the South’s expansionist goals. The South wanted the Southwest U.S. and they wanted to expand into the Caribbean.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not become the law of the land. It was not within Lincoln’s presidential powers; only Congress could enact such a measure. The E.P. was a military order that only applied to those states in rebellion because Lincoln did have the authority to issue such a command. This is alluded to when Ryan mentions Maryland abolishing slavery in 1864.
Anyway, I think these are important details to understanding the Civil War. Some of the details are beyond the scope of Ryan’s topic, but others should not have been omitted. Other parts of the presentation are also incomplete with regard to Jim Crow, but I think Ryan hit the facts most pertinent to soldiers’ voting rights.
1
-
1
-
1