If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War | RobbelothE | Military Aviation | 248 | February 2nd 04 02:45 AM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |