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 |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
|
#372
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up against the US militarily in the next 20 years. Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough to cooperate with a U.S. invasion. China is another example where many of the citizens support the government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into conflict with the U.S. at some point. And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the conflict. Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3 incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts. |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:42:11 +0100, "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen"
wrote: Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ... "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ... You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better, don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights wars today. The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of operating on their own initiative. Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of internal politics.) Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able to throw them out the price hasnīt really been low - or do you really view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really effective at protecting them ? If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone can get inside it. OK, you first. A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric warfare. ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch the heart of the CVBG? Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing matter to you ? Well, remember, that there were concerns about docking the cole there, that were overrruled for political reasons. So killing the Cole at peacetime, and killing it in wartime, when it would presumably be allowed to sink any shipo approaching it are two different things. As an opening move, it has some plausibility, but it woudl quickly cease to be a viable tactic. That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to be. Not arrogance-- but I do think the U.S. has always had the problem of discounting non-technological solutations. Witness 9/11-- before that every magazine was full of articles about terrorist nukes/bios/emp weapons-- but that was how an *american* woudl likely do things, going for the technological knock out blow. It's a bit of a blind spot with us. People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions. Not always-- usually what happens is that they hold on until outside events conspire to bring them victory. The resitance in Europe and the phillipines is an example-- they were unable to drive the enemy away, but did hold down large portions of his forces. Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties. If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight. It might work, but it probably won't. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ? It depends on what sort of fight we're in. Vietnam and Iran ddn't come in the aftermath of an attack on the U.S.,a nd neither did lebanon. The whole 9/11 thing did change the political equation-- whether or not it will continue to do so remains to be seen, especially should Al Qaeda not launch another assualt. Often, the exterior factor that counts is U.S. public opinion. To fight that you have to make yourself sympathetic or make them think that occupation will only make things worse. In that case, the current war shows the danger of a dramatic first strike-- while many americans aren't completely on board with Bush's strategy (ranging from mild disagreement with some tactics to major strategy disagreemens), I doubt there are many here who advocate "doing nothing and hoping Bin Laden retires". Thats one factor of Asymetric warfare that we haven't talked about too much-- making certain your methods don't create such rage that they actually end up being counterproductive. If the U.S. is invading you with a division, blowing up Down Town LA won't get them sent home, It'll get them reinforced. -------------------------------------- Carl Alex Friis Nielsen Love Me - take me as I think I am |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Charles Gray wrote: On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough to cooperate with a U.S. invasion. "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a lot, due to years of internal propaganda)? Up until about late March, a lot of folks were telling us about all of that "popular support" in Iraq, and we all know how that went. Ditto for last year and Afghanistan... China is another example where many of the citizens support the government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into conflict with the U.S. at some point. China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism, because the government has figured out that they could do better by opening up than by closing down. And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the conflict. That's why they're not called "totalitarian." It helps keep some of the power out of the hands of people who would use it *only* the way they feel, without input from their populace. Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3 incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts. Like Tienanmen... a government that hold power by fear alone is not exactly what you'd call "popular." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:13:11 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up against the US militarily in the next 20 years. Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some people would call Iran that, Only people who don't know what totalitarian means. but the government enjoys a fair amount of support, So have many repressive regimes, for example Nazi Germany (at least in the early years). -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
: Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
: simple, right? : : Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some : people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount : of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough : to cooperate with a U.S. invasion. : "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in : Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as : strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a : lot, due to years of internal propaganda)? While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I would suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much stronger than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards the U.S. You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/ executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly, just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that. : China is another example where many of the citizens support the : government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call : it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into : conflict with the U.S. at some point. : China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism, : because the government has figured out that they could do better by : opening up than by closing down. I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany. Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power, often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative' business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if only right into a destructive war. regards, ------------------------------------------------------------- |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:18:13 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
wrote: I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany. Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power, often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative' business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if only right into a destructive war. regards, ------------------------------------------------------------- Or as another example, South Korea for most of the 20th century. A pretty much "anything goes" economic model, but still rather repressive politically. |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steven James Forsberg wrote: If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. If it weren't for their governments feeding propaganda against the US and Israel (with US dollars paying for it in the case of Egypt), most of the people in these places wouldn't have any real reasons to dislike or fear the US. Look at the recent government-sponsored broadcast of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Egypt, for example. As far as that goes, try to find a modern anti-US movement in the Mideast that *wasn't* at least partly funded by one government or another. Even Al-Qaeda was formed and supported by a member of the Saudi Royal Family. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:
Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able to throw them out the price hasnīt really been low - or do you really view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really effective at protecting them ? Which is a nice way of avoiding addressing the issues I raised. A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric warfare. ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch the heart of the CVBG? Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing matter to you ? From a strategic viewpoint, it is worth a laugh or two. Again, you resort to an emotional argument to avoid addressing the hard facts. That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to be. It's not arrogance, it's simple cold facts. Killing the Cole barely scratched the combat power of the CVBG. And in a real war, *that* is what matters. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven James Forsberg" wrote in message ... : Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be : simple, right? : : Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some : people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount : of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough : to cooperate with a U.S. invasion. : "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in : Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as : strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a : lot, due to years of internal propaganda)? While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I would suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much stronger than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards the U.S. You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/ executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly, just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that. LOL You do realize Iran ISN'T a democracy of any real sense don't you? It is a Theocracy with a limited fake democracy cover. If a non-elected government branch can kill, imprison, or remove from the ballot any politician who doesn't get the "Good Islamic Stamp Of Approval" before or after the election - its not a democracy. Plus veto any legislation they don't like. This is why the 30 majority has been on the verge of staging a revolution for a few years. Which is why a "real" democracy next door in Iraq should be scaring them so bad. The Islamic "priests" seam to still be beating the "rule by divine right" drum since they seam to think they should be ruling not just the current "royalty" of their countries. Remember the ones in Afghanistan ranting that it was a SIN to accept a democratic government there. [trim] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |