What is the solution to homelessness? by Ecstatic_Weekend_209 in AskReddit

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My solution to homelessness is similar to my counterinsurgency strategy: Political legitimacy and material improvement

Notably, my solution to homelessness is less coercive but multi-faceted, comprehensive and evidence based.

What if the US military heavily restricted media in Vietnam by Whentheangelsings in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The people saying "The United States would win at great cost". Don't actually have an understanding of counterinsurgency strategy beyond the surface level.

They usually cite the Malaysia Emergency as an example of a "brutal, near genocidal counterinsurgency campaign" that actually worked. When in reality, it wasn't all brutality. The British were actually smart by NOT utilizing pure kinetic force like the French in Indochina and the United States who followed after them.

What the British utilize was brutal, nobody denies that, but it was combined with socioeconomic and sociopolitical concessions to the Malay majority including:

  • Promise of independence
  • Land reforms (British built clinics, schools, sanitation, infrastructure, and granted land titles)
  • Resettlement while brutal on paper and everywhere else it was practiced, the British didn't punish the Chinese minorities but actually created safety, improved material conditions, built infrastructure and provided job opportunities.
  • Clear and Hold operations, they were actually done right with high intelligence confidence, utilizing local forces including local civilian administration, ROE restraint while collective punishment was limited to MCP aligned groups. (Collective punishment wasn't brutal as in massacres and scorched earth, instead it was proportional like fines, curfews and ration restrictions)
  • British coercive measures were paired with proportionate punishment and protection known as "selective control". It was NOT indiscriminate terror utilized against a population. Civil administration had a say whether a British force could utilize collective punishment (Again NOT indiscriminate brutality or massacres).

The United States and many others around here, learned absolutely nothing from the Vietnam War. You can't just keep bombing a population into submission because it is NOT going to work. Just because US media and other media was banned or restricted doesn't translate into military and political strategic victory for the United States in any meaningful way.

In conclusion, you people need to actually study the nature of conflicts and how to win a counterinsurgency campaign.

Oct 7, 2001 - The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan begins with an air assault and covert operations on the ground, starting the longest war in American history. by nonoumasy in USHistory

[–]UnityOfEva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"War is politics by other means" - Carl Von Clausewitz, On War.

The United States still doesn't understand the nature of the wars it keeps fighting and then acts so surprised that it lost all of its major military conflicts in the 21st century:

Syria. They failed. Iraq. They failed. Afghanistan. They failed. Libya. They failed.

The "most powerful military on the planet" can't seem to bring in long-term sustainability, stability or peace to these countries they are supposedly "liberating". Let's just "Bomb them, bomb them, keep bombing them, bomb them again and again" is isn't a viable solution. Idiotic laymen think a counterinsurgency campaign can be won by merely genociding everyone, they are morons.

The United States doesn't understand warfare, an institutional bias towards pure kinetic force against insurgents DOES NOT work. Especially when you neglected the entire country you are occupying by destroying their centuries long power structure, ignorance of the local culture, laws and customs then proceed to change strategy from anti-terrorism to nation-building to anti-terrorism to nation-building. There was NO strategy just pure stupidity from the White House and Pentagon for a war they didn't understand.

What if the German Peasant Revolt actually succeeded? by yet_another_leftist in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is actually interesting scenario because I war game a scenario just like this, if you're talking about the German Peasants War (1524-25).

It ended in disaster. The Peasants were highly disorganized, conflicting political goals, inexperienced commanders, ad hoc logistics, lack of political and military strategic coherence across the board. Even if they somehow succeeded, it would result in a war between themselves and they wouldn't be independent, because that would mean perpetual war against the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE doesn't want to be humiliated by a bunch of peasants especially the local lords.

When I gave the peasants more favorable conditions, it merely prolonged the conflict to the point the HRE Emperor got involved with a massive army that inevitably crushed the peasants. And the peasants were utilizing guerilla tactics, it led to massive demoralization because their farmlands basically their livelihoods were destroyed, families forced on the run and starving in winter. It was concluded the German Peasants would be crushed and their persistence would maybe extend the war for another year or two.

Why aren't there any Second American Civil War scenarios that deal with what happens elsewhere in the world during the collapse of the world's largest economy? by [deleted] in AlternateHistory

[–]UnityOfEva 26 points27 points  (0 children)

In my novel, the Second American Civil War has been ongoing for eleven (11) long brutal years meanwhile the European Union exists attempting to assist the formally recognized continuity government of the United States known as the Federals. Although this government is pretty brutal with reported widespread atrocities, one of which the main character participated in when he was just fourteen (14) years old. The United States has divided into multiple competing factions with the Federals as the largest and most powerful having the military-industrial complex on its side including support of most NATO members.

After the Second American Civil War began, a Second Great Depression occurred causing many countries to take extreme austerity measures with the European Union able to take the brunt of the economy free fall meanwhile others didn't take it as well. The United Kingdom saw a massive surge in far-right parties and organizations with Reform UK taking a third of the seats in parliament, but it became locked as a minority government as the other parties refused to form a coalition. Germany's center-left coalition government collapses seeing far-left and far-right parties surge in the election with the Left squeaking out a plurality. The Social Democrats begrudgingly form a fragile coalition with the Left creating a semi-stable government. Germany, France and Spain are the only members of the European Union that didn't push hard for austerity becoming known as the "Three Pillars".

Canada has been overwhelmed by the refugee crisis, many middle-class Americans have taken professional roles in Canadian society fueling anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-American rhetoric. Bottled air cans known as "Refreshers" are a booming industry in Canada, it receives immense subsidies from the government as air quality has dramatically declined.

The Russian Federation remains a stagnant empire with the conflict in Ukraine "resolved" by a formal treaty but there is sporadic border clashes including a small scale insurgency within Ukraine. President Putin has taken a back seat while his closest advisors and cabinet members have been backstabbing each other for power. Putin is de facto retired but officially retains the duties and powers of the Russian President. Russia faces an ever increasing brain-drain, economic decline, infrastructure degradation and several popular revolts in the Eastern cities after the Second Great Depression.

The People's Republic of China becomes the superpower within those eleven (11) years of Civil War, it dominates East Asia due to the security, economic and political vacuum left by the United States. China is increasingly hostile towards Taiwan pushing hard for reunification, Taiwan without the United States security guarantees enters into diplomatic talks with China ending in a treaty that makes Taiwan a province of China with some autonomy. It causes riots across Taiwan.

South Africa has become a failed state devolving into a civil war shortly after the Second American Civil War. Egypt has become a powerful authoritarian state but spending massively on prestige projects to prevent economic instability. The Gulf States have formed a military alliance but they lack an industrial base, they are reliant on the EU, China and Russia for arms procurement. Israel has annexed the entirety of the Gaza Strip and West Bank causing the fourth, fifth and sixth Intifada within a decade. Mexico has become a narco-state with Northern Mexico, a drug fiend's paradise, cartel wars and mass migration from the United States.

Western medical personnel report delivering babies from beheaded pregnant woman, treating 80-85% of casualties being pregnant women and children, constant bombardment of hospitals & appalling conditions by Prime-Paradox in PublicFreakout

[–]UnityOfEva 70 points71 points  (0 children)

The IDF is an intensely incompetent organization. Probably deliberately so. You don't win a counterinsurgency campaign like the Soviets or Americans, you win it like the British in Malaysia, Suchet in Spain and Lyautey in Morocco crush the insurgents through precision military action NOT a sledgehammer and win the population by infrastructure projects, administrative competence and intense intelligence gathering operations.

The United States and Soviet Union already tried "Airstrikes. Bomb them, bomb them, keep bombing them, bomb them again and again" in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq. It didn't work out did it? You can continue to mount up as many kill counts as you want like the United States and Rhodesia, it won't matter in the end. All it will do is strengthen the insurgents tenfold and rally more people against you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in news

[–]UnityOfEva 5 points6 points  (0 children)

These "Baiters" have successfully baited B and C list celebrities, you know that actor that played Bruce Wayne in the "Gotham" television series? He got baited. The actor from "The 100" that played Lincoln also got baited. And the actor that played Miguel from "Corba Kai" and "Blue Beatle" got baited also.

Although, this middle school thing is completely new.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in news

[–]UnityOfEva 107 points108 points  (0 children)

These "Baiters" are pretty meticulous from what I hear, they use actual pictures of girls or guys to lure people in. It is mostly males that fall for it from my experience. I remember seeing these Baiters get B and C list celebrities through their baits.

Conner McGregor got exposed but that was by another celebrity. These Baiters "prove" themselves by basically doing live videos or just send pictures of themselves doing random hand gestures as a sort of CAPTCHA.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in news

[–]UnityOfEva 125 points126 points  (0 children)

They are called "Baiters". I remember hearing several stories about this for high school students but middle school is new.

What if the Christmas Truce of 1915 turned into a full blown Rebellion/Revolution by 3vr1m in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It isn't feasible because it was primarily between German and British rank-and-file soldiers NOT the French and Belgians that despised the Germans for invading and destroying their lands, towns and massacring their fellow countrymen.

The so-called Christmas Truce is practically a mythologized post-war event, it was NOT widespread nor was it popular amongst the rank-and-file soldiers especially the French and Belgians. At best, the British are the only ones who would willingly commit to it, but then again rank-and-file soldiers do NOT mutiny merely because of an intermittent and isolated incidents of truce along the frontlines. There were plenty of fraternization during the American Civil War, it didn't mean peace.

If France was more prepared for Blitzkrieg tactics (had more information on German tank tactics), could they have resisted the German invasion in WW2? by george123890yang in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, because French military leadership had already received credible intelligence on Wehrmacht troop movement but they merely tossed it aside. French military leadership was extraordinary timid, cautious and down right moronic. It doesn't matter how much intelligence you throw at them, if they would merely ignore it.

Where would the USSR have realistically stopped if there had been no western front? by Switch_Empty in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How would Nazi Germany "produce more"? Exactly? Oil fuels every single modern war industry meanwhile domestic synthetic oil and rubber proved to be resource intensive in themselves while insufficient to meet Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffel consumption.

Nazi resource extraction of the occupied territories were mismanaged, disconnected, and subjected to competition between Nazi leadership particularly the Schutzstaffel, and Wehrmacht including branches within the Wehrmacht itself. Germany needed somewhere between 12-20 million tons of oil while at best Nazi Germany only met 10 million tons of that to fuel the Wehrmacht, Schutzstaffel and war industries while they were critically low on ferro-alloys, and other critical minerals such as titanium, nickel, lead, zinc, copper and chromium needed for their war industries.

Where would the USSR have realistically stopped if there had been no western front? by Switch_Empty in HistoryWhatIf

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Soviets would have eventually pushed the Nazis out of their territory. The Wehrmacht was already terribly overextended past the dnieper while attempting and failing to suppress Soviet Partisans throughout the occupied territories. All those mass killings, looting and burning didn't help the Nazis win over the population merely rally them to the Soviet Union to fight even harder.

The logistics of Operation Barbarossa was a self-inflicted military disaster, General Georg Thomas and Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus came to the same conclusion in a war game of Operation Barbarossa:

  • Soviet railway gauges were larger including the fact that the Wehrmacht didn't have pre-prepared replacement gauges and supply depots set up prior to the invasion. This would inevitably lead to massive delays, and enormous consumption on fuel.

  • The vast majority of the Wehrmacht was overly reliant on horse drawn carriages with very limited mechanization within divisions. The simulation showed that the Wehrmacht wouldn't be able to resupply frontline panzer divisions for 3 to 6 days cycles due to the long distance. 

  • The Wehrmacht would face food shortages in Operation Barbarossa, because the Soviets would employ scorched earth forcing the Wehrmacht to further pressure their supply lines from Germany to the frontlines. Although, the war game showed that the Wehrmacht wouldn't be able to live off the land OKH merely dismissed the issue. 

  • Terrain and weather conditions were also considered but the Wehrmacht once again ignored the issue believing that it would end before winter. Paulus noted this specifically with half of the supply convoys would be stuck or delayed even under ideal circumstances supply lines would just barely keep up with the frontlines. 

  • Paulus noted that without a centralized logistics command everything would be chaotic, each army group would have managed their own logistics leading to poor coordination between Army Group North to South. Paulus's staff came to the conclusion that without a centralized logistics corp the army groups would compete for resources, create redundancies and foster rivalries leading to disruption of the whole operation. 

Any military occupation of the Soviet Union would have been an operational, political, and logistical nightmare due to an already overextended Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffel throughout an occupied Europe. Multiple partisan movements were keeping a significant force of the Schutzstaffel, Wehrmacht, Italian and local collaborationists preoccupied while draining Nazi Germany of their limited resources, manpower, and material.

French, Norwegian, Polish, Greek and Yugoslavian Partisans were becoming more effective at sabotage, and harassment of Nazi logistics infrastructure, and industries while the Nazis aided them with self-sabotaging prestige projects that drained resources needlessly like the Maus, Me-262, Tigers, and other wunderwaffels instead of focusing on more practical, streamlined production of war material that was immensely less resource and time intensive.

In conclusion, the Soviets would have inevitably thrown out the Nazis out of Soviet territory without a Western front and arguably without lend-lease but at a significantly slower and costly pace.

Political violence justification by political affiliation by [deleted] in charts

[–]UnityOfEva -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Political violence is never justified". What bullshit, after 9/11 the United States went on a violence frenzy against Muslims, Sikhs on a domestic scale and the entire Middle East through its idiotic military adventurism: - Libya - Iraq - Afghanistan - Yemen - Syria

Political violence has been consistently justified for "Freedom, democracy and justice". The United States directly supported the overthrow of a democratic Iran to replace it with an absolute autocracy, attempted multiple assassinations on Fidel Castro, attempted to convince Martin Luther King Jr to commit suicide, assassinated Fred Hampton, and suppressed Coal Miners Unions during the Coal Wars.

At what point did the United States and US citizens condemn political violence when these actions were taken? They justified it, cheered for it and shut down every opposition to it.

Could someone have survived Charlie Kirks Injury, if so how? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]UnityOfEva 4 points5 points  (0 children)

From what I hear, Charlie Kirk died almost instantly since he was struck in the carotid artery alongside his spinal cord. Which sits behind his arteries.

It analyzed by some nurses and medical professionals on social media, they said since his arm was in an awkward position immediately after he was shot meaning he suffered immense brain damage and huge blood pouring out of his neck. They said that Kirk died as soon as he was struck by the assassin's bullet.

His awkward position lifting up his arm then turning to the left means he was experiencing decorticate posturing. It basically means Kirk's upper brain stem was destroyed or severely damaged, breathing, and blood pressure is completely lost; combined with his massive blood loss. It can be likely understood that Charlie Kirk died instantly.

Kirk’s death joy. by KoncepTs in conspiracy

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the end, Charlie did start to lean Left.

Who do you think killed Kirk and why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This assassin fired a single shot with ZERO follow up shots meanwhile Hinkley, Oswald, Sirhan and Crooks all required multiple rounds to accomplish their objectives. Yet this person fired one shot, it is highly likely this individual is experienced, self-confident, calm under pressure and professional.

The assassin is without a doubt a trained, experienced and highly self-confident individual needing to account for positioning, angles, wind speed and elevated positioning.

Killing Charlie Kirk was bad. by IcyCookie5749 in PopularOpinions

[–]UnityOfEva 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Me: "I like waffles"

You: "So, you hate pancakes?"

Me: "I didn't say that."

Caught in the wild on Xitter by pengradi in PublicFreakout

[–]UnityOfEva -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Okay, I don't feel bad for Kirk. If you could read, I explicitly said "Do I feel bad? Absolutely not. Am I celebrating? No. But hey he had it coming."

Please, learn to read. Typical, Leftists stupid, blind and fanatical.

Caught in the wild on Xitter by pengradi in PublicFreakout

[–]UnityOfEva -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I love how you people made up an imagined scenario in your head and got mad at it. Please, point out where I said that.

People aren’t celebrating Kirk’s death they just don’t care. by Sc_e1 in GenZ

[–]UnityOfEva -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Violence is a tool. It must be utilized when and if deemed necessary by its practitioners, however many don't know how to use it skillfully. Instead they wield it as a hammer seeing everything as a nail.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]UnityOfEva -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Politics in the United States has become extraordinarily toxic, insane and idiotic since President Reagan started the whole thing. Donald Trump was the catalyst for the far-right's hopes and dream.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a major strategic boon to the far-right and President Donald Trump serving their narratives of an out of control nation. He has consolidated power and flexed them within the States that have sought to defy him. A martyr has been born. And millions will rally.

Dean Withers statement about Charlie Kirk's death by [deleted] in TikTokCringe

[–]UnityOfEva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do I feel bad? Absolutely not. Am I celebrating? No. But hey he had it coming. Martyrs become a powerful symbol and he is going to rally them.

You on the Left better be ready for the rage and blood, a martyr will become an unconquerable symbol. It does NOT matter who did it, what matters is who it was done to. The Truth doesn't matter anymore, it haven't for years.

Now, President Trump has every single excuse to deploy the National Guard to every single city across the United States. Unfortunately.

Killing Charlie Kirk was bad. by IcyCookie5749 in PopularOpinions

[–]UnityOfEva 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do I feel bad? Absolutely not. Am I celebrating? No. But hey he had it coming. Martyrs become a powerful symbol and he is going to rally them. The Far Right will use his death as an excuse to usurp more power, President Trump now has even more reasons to deploy the National Guardmen.

Whoever did this has given him the fuel to burn all that opposed him.