Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"sddso" wrote in message

Point 1 has it completely backwards. As George Orwell pointed out circa
1944, the objective result from war protesters is that the totalitarian,
non-civilized powers (aka enemies of the United States and Allied
nations) are given aid and comfort;

By your reasoning, democratic powers should be at a disadvantage
in warfare. This runs contrary to the historical evidence. States with
democratic, law-abiding governments have a better record in war
than dictatorships: They are both less likely to start unwinnable
conflicts and more efficient in fighting the war they get involved in.
Allowing criticism makes government more efficient, not less.
An answerable government can call on the loyalty of the soldiers
and citizens, and unaccountable government can expect support
only as when it has victories to boast of.

Not so certain this is entirely true Emmanuel.

I believe you're correct that democratic governments are less
likely to get involved in a war to begin with, but once involved,
the democratic process can be quite undermining to a war effort.

Well it seems to me that democratic governments you refer to are
merely the english speaking island nations and being an island or
independant continent may have as much to do with it than democracy.
Really and empirical analysis is in order here.

The theorems of von Clauswitz state that a population must be ready
pschologically and poltically for war. I believe the aftermatch of
Vietnam brought new credibily to the 19th century Prussian
theoretician in US Military and other circles.

von Clausiwitz was analysing a Prussian Defeat by the French (who so
often fought wars to prevent a rival through the various German states
unifying) and asserted that the Prussians were not ready to fight in
anyway.

Since Gulf war one US populations have been extensively "briefed up"
and the press extensively managed. A number of factors seem to have
influenced the Western population and US senators into the Gulf War 1
and marginialised the opposition. These include the baby incubator
scam in Gulf war one. They Weapons of Mass Destruction "Beleive us
they're there somewhere" shows that western public opinon migh be
manipulated as well if not better than a dictatorship.

Personally I have no problem with invading Iraq for the oil should it
be necessary for my interests. Its kind of like those western range
wars over cattlement upstream cutting of the water supply to guy
downstream. (Only without the romance between the cattlemens son and
daughter)

Unfortunately hyped atrocities are also a characteristic of western
democracies making war. They seem to be every way as bad as the ones
circulating in the dictatorships.


Enemies of democracies have an added tool in undermining the war
effort of their adversaries. They can manipulate public opinion to
some degree.

Lincoln was saved from defeat by timely victories over Confederates
in the fall of 1864, when it seemed to the general public a bloody
stalemate had largely been achieved.

Pity really.

We all know the antiwar
movement of the Vietnam period paralyzed the American government
politically during the early 70's, to the point funding for it
was about to be stopped.

Oil, Israel, infleuntial Jewish Population in USA, attidudes against
marxism all played a part.

Irak may well turn into a Vietnam if the Population can not be won
over.


If the Baathist insurgents doing their
thing in Iraq right now have any political savvy, they should
be very energetic about inflicting casualties on American forces
in country around fall of this year. They may have a shot at
snuffing out the war effort, and replacing a president with their
efforts.


VietCong commited many atrocities on their own people. They still
won.

I suppose there won't be any muslim prostitues with razor blades in
the vagina to demoralised drug ****ed conscripts.



Meanwhile, Stalin and Hitler kept their countries fighting via
raw brutality. Difficult to see a democracy standing up to that
sort of punishment without an exceptionally skilled leader keeping
public opinion "properly" directed.

The German populations had plenty of reasons to fight; though ther
were very trepidatious.




Everyone who is foolish enough to beleive in 'efficient dictatorship'
should study the history of WWII more closely. The waste and
stupidity of which dictatorial regimes are capable are almost
beyond belief.

True enough. Probably in a democracy, the incompetents would be
weeded out more quickly.

There are no democracies in the west apart from switzerland at the
local government. They are all 'republics' or commonwelaths' in which
officials are elected to represent the peoples interests.

Because to the Labyrithn rules, the extreme expense and the need to
raised money and borker deals and the development of elites the people
will is not democractically enforced.

However, there's nothing to prevent a
train of incompetents getting important, war effort jobs. Look
at the people Lincoln was saddled with in his own administration.
The Secretary of War was an outright bandito but due to political
reasons, kept his job for a while.

Political pressures make democratic leaders do dumb things too!


SMH