Post by: HankB on October 03, 2006, 03:59:58 AM
Here's an interesting snippet from Page 2 of the story:
Quote
Frist and Martinez . . . had intended to visit a new $6.5 million hospital built by the United Arab Emirates, but a group of wounded Taliban fighters were recuperating there, including a midlevel commander, and U.S. commander Lt. Col. Kevin McGlaughlin canceled the visit because of security concerns.
NO WONDER the Taliban is enjoying a resurgence - we KNOW where they are, AND WE WON'T GO GET THEM! Stay tuned - maybe if/when Frist visits Berlin, he'll come up with reasons for re-Nazification of Germany.
Post by: El Tejon on October 03, 2006, 04:08:04 AM
Washington wants an out as they have their you know what in a hornets' nest. They will make the Taliban part of a coalition government, proclaim victory, run like hell from Afghanistan, and watch as the country melts down into civil war a couple of years later. Then, we get to start all over--yay! Sort of like The Matrix if you think about it!:D
Great book entitled God's Terrorists which details the Wahabbi/Deobani activity during the British Raj. History repeating itself--first as tragedy, second is farce.
Post by: El Tejon on October 03, 2006, 04:19:49 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 03, 2006, 08:35:38 AM
9/11 may very well have been our last chance for a dramatic cultural and ideological change, but the wrong people were at the right place at the right time, and thus failed to rise to the occasion.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 03, 2006, 05:02:32 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 05:18:48 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 03, 2006, 09:20:00 PM
This war cannot be won without far more violence than too many Americans are willing to stomach.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 02:42:00 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Yes, let's keep playing "gendarmes & apaches" with these dirtbags, galloping around the world. Pathetic.
This war cannot be won without far more violence than too many Americans are willing to stomach.
Really? What would you suggest? Nuke em all and let god sort them out? American suicide bombers in Khost? Sending body parts back to families? Let's hear your solutions.
This war cannot be won without far more violence than too many Americans are willing to stomach.
Post by: roo_ster on October 04, 2006, 06:08:12 AM
Mao Tse-Tung
To eliminate the Taliban threat in a relatively quick manner, we would have to remove the people who support them. This technique has been demonstrated in times past. The old way was killing & dispersing the population. The Brits intorduced concentration camps as a more humane alternative in S Africa at the turn of the 20th century. The Israelis were fortunate in that so many Arabs left/were rousted during their war for independance. Now, they are fencing off the population which fosters guerillas to inhibit guerilla movement.
Otherwise, most successful counter-insurgencies take about 10 years to achieve success. Relatively recent examples include the Brits in Maylaysia & the SW Arabian peninsula, the USA vs the Viet Cong in S Vietnam, USA vs Moros in the PI, USA vs various guerillas in Latin America in the first half of the 20th century.
Neither solution is pretty. The former is the least palatable to contemporary sensibilities...though it is arguably the most likely to achieve a stable situation after the counter-insurgent forces leave the area.
From my perspective, I expect the West (read: USA & Anglosphere) will have to go in every so often to "drain the swamp" and kill some jihadis. It is a task the West has had to perform since the Mohammedians broke out of Arabia.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 06:09:26 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 07:57:15 AM
The nexus of will is their perception as fighters of a holy war. To win against a holy war, you must discredit it either by inflicting horrible depressing military defeats or by scoring psychological victories. The former worked with the Nazis and bushidoist because they fought as countries and modern armies in uniform. Clearly, the nature of guerilla warfare will disallow such a pathway here (see the recent Israeli debacle in Lebanon). The latter however are readily accessible.
As I have argued previously, destroy their religious and cultural icons, abuse and destroy their relics, blow up their temples, kill off their leaders and ideologues, stomp their cultures into the dust.
All of the above can be accomplished with minimal casualties if done right. Their spirit will be broken and victory achieved.
Finally, I will be less than sincere if I do not point out that I consider the complete nuclear obliteration of the Near and Middle East a viable and likely preferable alternative. However, many fellow-Americans would not be up to it (at least up until it is too late), and thus I propose trying the above first.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 08:04:14 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 08:14:01 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?
Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.
Post by: richyoung on October 04, 2006, 08:25:41 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?
How else is one to respond to...murder, mayhem, and the destruction of culteral relics, with forced conversion thrown in to boot? If you wressle with pigs, you're gonna get muddy. Can't win THIS fight with Marquis de Queensbury rules...
Post by: Iain on October 04, 2006, 08:35:10 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.
No, I think it was a fairly logical non-emotional argument. A good one too.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
Well advocating murder, mayhem, and destruction of cultural relics really gives you some legitimacy here, doesn't it?
Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.Post by: charby on October 04, 2006, 09:01:12 AM
-C
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Here we go again. No argument or logic, just an emotional lunge at personal discreditation. This tactics of yours keeps failing yet you keep resorting to it.
Anyone with a shred of human decency doesn't need to waste too much time logically disputing a call to genocide.Quote from: jfruser
To eliminate the Taliban threat in a relatively quick manner, we would have to remove the people who support them. This technique has been demonstrated in times past. The old way was killing & dispersing the population. The Brits intorduced concentration camps as a more humane alternative in S Africa at the turn of the 20th century.
Interesting point. The Kaiser's troops tried something like this when they instituted their policy of "frightfulness," or repressive, brutal treatment of the occupied people in Belgium. As in South Africa and every other case, the policy ultimately backfired. I think it would be especially likely to backfire on a culture like that in Afghanistan, where people think of history not in terms of years or even decades, but in terms of centuries and even millennia.I'd be lying if I said I had good ideas for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan. Until I do, I'm going to have to defer to Bill Frist, who is much more well-informed on the subject then I am.
BTW, I am Lobotomy Boy. I had to log in under a different name on this computer because I didn't have access to my original password. I think this has caused some confusion in the past.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 09:46:02 AM
I don't think CAnnoneer is talking about genocide, although his plan is almost as brutal.
His more detailed plan, from here, post 13: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=4419&p=1
Quote
Total (cultural) war.
For the leaders, capture them, leave them unkempt, and show them on TV inside cages like wild animals. Break them psychologically by exposure and mental warfare, until they appear on TV and talk about the error of their ways and how everything is lost. (kind of what the libs are doing to America now)
For their cultural icons, rip, destroy, detonate, smash, cast into the dust:
1) Loot and destroy their temples,
2) break up the Black Rock into little pieces, pulverize it into fine dust, then put it in fiber mixture to make toilet paper out of it. Sell the toilet paper and encourage the population to use it
3) Demolish their historic cities, plow the land, and sow it with salt so that nothing grows there
4) Ban all arabic languages on TV, on radio, on the internet, and in print
5) Burn down all their theological libraries
6) Destroy the madrassas and take the students as prisoners of war
7) Arrest, try, and execute every imam that even thinks about "jihad"
Arrest, try, expropriate, and execute every sheikh that finances jihad and/or refuses to secularize
9) Send a bunch of old-school teachers to teach English and Western civilization values in all local schools
All areas in which significant guerrilla activity arises are to be depopulated. The message is clear: if you support guerrillas, pack your bags! If you do not support guerrillas, they won't be here.
The above is a start.
For the leaders, capture them, leave them unkempt, and show them on TV inside cages like wild animals. Break them psychologically by exposure and mental warfare, until they appear on TV and talk about the error of their ways and how everything is lost. (kind of what the libs are doing to America now)
For their cultural icons, rip, destroy, detonate, smash, cast into the dust:
1) Loot and destroy their temples,
2) break up the Black Rock into little pieces, pulverize it into fine dust, then put it in fiber mixture to make toilet paper out of it. Sell the toilet paper and encourage the population to use it
3) Demolish their historic cities, plow the land, and sow it with salt so that nothing grows there
4) Ban all arabic languages on TV, on radio, on the internet, and in print
5) Burn down all their theological libraries
6) Destroy the madrassas and take the students as prisoners of war
7) Arrest, try, and execute every imam that even thinks about "jihad"
Arrest, try, expropriate, and execute every sheikh that finances jihad and/or refuses to secularize9) Send a bunch of old-school teachers to teach English and Western civilization values in all local schools
All areas in which significant guerrilla activity arises are to be depopulated. The message is clear: if you support guerrillas, pack your bags! If you do not support guerrillas, they won't be here.
The above is a start.
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 09:49:36 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 10:07:48 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 10:09:03 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Of course, they are the ones whose butts would be hauled up in international tribunal for war crimes so I guess they have some stake in the matter.
By whom? Such trials are set up by self-indulgent victors. If you are the victor, you hold the trial. Kind of like what we are doing to Saddam now.Maybe you should go read about Curtis LeMay and other fine Americans, and how they won WW2. It is so very ironic that the only reason you have the opportunity to criticize such methods is because they were applied by your ancestors for your sake. Hehehehe. It just does not get better than that...
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 12:32:16 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
To win against a holy war, you must discredit it either by inflicting horrible depressing military defeats or by scoring psychological victories. The former worked with the Nazis and bushidoist because they fought as countries and modern armies in uniform. Clearly, the nature of guerilla warfare will disallow such a pathway here (see the recent Israeli debacle in Lebanon). The latter however are readily accessible.
We made the Emperor publicly admit he was not divine, but I don't recall him being kept in a cage. The Nazi leadership were simply tried and hung, weren't they? I still say the best way to humiliate the Islamist leadership is to have them wake up with female organs. Maybe they could be forced to learn belly-dancing and then tour the Mid-East. Hee-hee-hee.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 12:33:04 PM
Quote from: Darwin
Anyone with a shred of human decency doesn't need to waste too much time logically disputing a call to genocide.
Indeed logic cannot be expected to survive in the face of an emotional reaction motivated by arbitrary idealistic ethical belief. Unfortunately, the reality is subject to physical, rather than ethical laws. Or maybe fortunately so, because while your ethics allows the jihadists to survive, their ethics demands your decapitation.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 12:39:50 PM
Quote from: fistful
I thought you said that we won WWII by other methods.
Military victories were certainly instrumental, but let's not kid ourselves about the psychological, economic, and military effects of strategic bombing and ultimately the two nuclear attacks. In his memoirs, Akira Kurosawa has some passages worth reading about what difference the nukes made. It is always amusing to me that some of the most militant pacifists (hehe) wouldn't even be around protesting against the nukes if the nukes were actually not used and so their granddaddies ended up dying in the conventional invasion...
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Indeed logic cannot be expected to survive in the face of an emotional reaction motivated by arbitrary idealistic ethical belief.
I believe, and I recognize this is a belief and not a logical position, that one has to have some cut-off point for how low one will sink in his behavior, ie. an arbitrary, idealistic line between what is ethically acceptable and what is ethically unacceptable, to retain one's basic humanity. What you are describing crosses that line for most humans I know.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 12:59:55 PM
How Mr. Darwin admits that he believes in alogical concepts, and would even die for them.
How Mr. Cannoneer prefers the arbitrary value of living to the arbirtrary value of being humane.
A fundie like me would be laughed to scorn for such arbitrary and alogical thinking. Allow me to return the favor.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 01:02:26 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
Of course, they are the ones whose butts would be hauled up in international tribunal for war crimes so I guess they have some stake in the matter.
By whom? Such trials are set up by self-indulgent victors. If you are the victor, you hold the trial. Kind of like what we are doing to Saddam now.Maybe you should go read about Curtis LeMay and other fine Americans, and how they won WW2. It is so very ironic that the only reason you have the opportunity to criticize such methods is because they were applied by your ancestors for your sake. Hehehehe. It just does not get better than that...
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 01:49:35 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Great. Another loose CAnoneer on APS.
A typical TheRabbism - cute but unsubstantive. If you ever choose to face jihadists with such methods in an arena, please let me know. I'll be happy to sell tickets. Rest assured some non-zero percentage of the intake will go to a charitable cause.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 01:51:37 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 01:51:59 PM
Quote from: fistful
Two amusing things:
How Mr. Darwin admits that he believes in alogical concepts, and would even die for them.
How Mr. Cannoneer prefers the arbitrary value of living to the arbirtrary value of being humane.
A fundie like me would be laughed to scorn for such arbitrary and alogical thinking. Allow me to return the favor.
As usual, excellent point, fistful.How Mr. Darwin admits that he believes in alogical concepts, and would even die for them.
How Mr. Cannoneer prefers the arbitrary value of living to the arbirtrary value of being humane.
A fundie like me would be laughed to scorn for such arbitrary and alogical thinking. Allow me to return the favor.
I'd add however that "To be humane, one must also be alive." Ergo the contradiction.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 02:12:36 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I believe, and I recognize this is a belief and not a logical position, that one has to have some cut-off point for how low one will sink in his behavior, ie. an arbitrary, idealistic line between what is ethically acceptable and what is ethically unacceptable, to retain one's basic humanity. What you are describing crosses that line for most humans I know.
In that we agree. I do not love my enemy.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 05, 2006, 07:38:20 AM
Quote from: N.Y. Times
The spirit of the document is captured in nine paradoxes that reflect the nimbleness required to win the support of the people and isolate insurgents from their potential base of support a task so complex that military officers refer to it as the graduate level of war.
Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. The more force used, the less effective it is, it notes.
Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. Tactical success guarantees nothing, it says.
Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. The more you protect your force, the less secure you are, it asserts.
Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. The more force used, the less effective it is, it notes.
Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. Tactical success guarantees nothing, it says.
Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. The more you protect your force, the less secure you are, it asserts.
The more force used, the less effective it is.
I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed, but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 05, 2006, 07:48:49 AM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed, but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.
+1
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2006, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:
The more force used, the less effective it is.
I see no contradiction between what USMC says and I said. The more force used, the less effective it is.
If I had to work within the same political constraints as they do, I would advocate the same approach as they do. When I do my own assessments to form an opinion, I have the benefit of not worrying about what politicos in WashDC, bleeding hearts, leftists, liberals, multiculturalists, et cetera, have to say about anything. The USMC has no such luxury.
When you impose additional constraints on a problem, why is it you are surprised you would get a different optimal (least evil) answer?
Quote
I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed,
Now you are getting silly. In every historical example where sufficient draconian military force was applied without constraints, it either subjugated the population or eradicated it completely. Reread world history and see that the most often result of a conquest was elimination of the most belligerent segment followed by submission of most of the population in the face of brutal tactics. I can see your emotional need to believe in a better world, but wishful thinking and reality are different things. Military force failed only where additional constraints, be it political, cultural, religious, or material made it impossible to eradicate a population that refused to submit even in the face of death.
Quote
but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.
You can hate me and dismiss me as much as you wish, but if you try to be honest with yourself you'll see that historical example is overwhelmingly on my side. Unless you envision a qualitative jump of humankind of some sort, the burden of proof remains upon you to provide convincing reasons of a potential behavioral discontinuity.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2006, 12:45:06 PM
In your own defense, would you clarify something? Darwin's Lobster asserts that you advocate genocide. Is this so? I didn't interpret your comments that way. Genocide involves killing, or attempting to kill, an entire race of people. I don't recall where you called for that.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2006, 01:04:37 PM
They wish me to argue genocide so they can pigeon-hole me and dismiss me more easily. That way, my words don't hurt as much. Hehehe. I wonder where we have seen or see such tactics before??
No, I am not advocating the destruction of ethnicities or races. I have friends and colleagues of virtually every tinge and flavor. I do not consider Americans of arabic descent or muslim belief any less American than any other. This is neither a racial nor ethnic thing. It is a cultural and military thing.
What I do advocate is the destruction of hostile cultures. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, some faster and less expensive than others. The fastest and least expensive way is indeed nuclear attacks all over the near and middle east, to eliminate the hostile cultures by eliminating their carriers; indeed that is the only way to win the WOT in an afternoon. A less bloody but more expensive and slower way is the cultural war tactics I explained in some limited detail, in a sense, hardcore "re-education". An even more sanitary and expensive way is "winning the hearts and minds" the smart way. The most expensive and least likely successful way is the current one, wherein we denounce terrorism but validate and "respect" the cultures that breed it.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 05, 2006, 03:29:26 PM
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 05, 2006, 03:41:41 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2006, 04:08:18 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
It worked so well for Hitler and Stalin....
Funny that you should bring up those examples: 1) As much as you'd like to ignore it, what defeated Hitler were regular armies, not guerrillas. The guerrillas caused some material damage and tied up some units, but L'Resistance in any country was nowhere nearly as effective or meaningful as Hollywood revisionism would like us to believe. In fact, there is no question that the guerrillas would have been completely wiped out in an year or two, without the "distraction" of gigantic regular armies.
2) Please explain exactly where Stalin was permanently thwarted by guerrillas.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2006, 04:10:14 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2006, 04:12:37 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why is the advocacy of slaughtering one religious group--the Jews--genocide while advocating the slaughter or a similar religious group--the Muslims--not genocide? Either way, it is the plan of a psychotic mind.
This is not about religion and you know it. Besides, comparing jihadists with jews is a bit silly, unless you agree with the nazi ideas about zionist-bolshevik world conspiracies. Do you?
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 05, 2006, 04:17:17 PM
Quote from: Dictionary.com
genocidenounthe deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
As I have argued previously, destroy their religious and cultural icons, abuse and destroy their relics, blow up their temples, kill off their leaders and ideologues, stomp their cultures into the dust.
I suppose you might argue that by killing off their "leaders and ideologues," you would not kill ALL Muslims, but you would wipe out a good portion of the people who inhabit the Middle East, well over six million, I reckon. Hence this would put your plan on par with Hitler's final solution, which was, of course, the event that led to the coining of the word "genocide."How do you define genocide?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2006, 04:21:04 PM
I'm not signing on to his plan, just pointing out that it's not genocide. Call it cruel, evil, despicable, whatever - it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2006, 04:33:00 PM
Lobby, by your definition, what the Allies did to the Germans also qualifies as genocide, since the Germans lost well over 11 million in WW2. Am I to understand you believe FDR and Churchill to be war criminals?
Finally, this is not a numbers game. A cultural war is based on perception and psychological victories, not body count. That's one of the reasons it is incomparable to Hitler, because the nazis believed EVERY jew was equally responsible and equally needed dead. That was based on genus, ergo genocide.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 05:26:34 AM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:
The more force used, the less effective it is.
A more self-serving, patently false sentence I have never seen. These places wring a few bells?The more force used, the less effective it is.
Carthage
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg
...just off of the top of my head. Force seemed to work pretty good on them. Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?
Quote
I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed,...
...doesn't matter how many times a lie is repeated, its still a lie...Quote
but it's good to see that the military has a more rational sense of the obvious than someone who would advocate "total (cultural) war." I am grateful that our military is run by sane, strategic-thinking men instead of psychotic Internet ninjas.
Where, oh where, is Patton and ('When we get done, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell") Halsey when we need them?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 05:57:27 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Carthage
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg
...just off of the top of my head. Force seemed to work pretty good on them. Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?
This is the best list you can come up with? What does Troy have to do with Nagasaki?Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg
...just off of the top of my head. Force seemed to work pretty good on them. Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?
How about Romans vs Jews, Turks vs Kurds, Chinese vs Tibetans? British vs Indians, Russians vs Afghans, one could go on. Force worked for a little while but ultimately failed, as LB pointed out. And do we really want to choose Spanish Conquistadors and other unsavory types as our role models?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 07:06:46 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
How about Romans vs Jews, Turks vs Kurds, Chinese vs Tibetans? British vs Indians, Russians vs Afghans, one could go on.
Come on now. In all those cases, there were additional constraints of various types. Just like I pointed out in an earlier post.The Romans were utterly successful in crushing the revolt and subjugating the jews. The only reason why there are still jews around today is because the Romans were a slaveowning society that looked upon military campaigns as a form of harvesting operation. Since the jews were far more useful alive than dead, those who submitted (by far the majority) were taken prisoner, enslaved, and sold all over the empire. Vespasian and Titus made piles of gold in the transaction.
The turks could not wipe out the kurds because they wanted membership in the EU and because population is a source of tax revenue.
The Chinese wanted to reeducate, not wipe out the Tibetans. In addition, communist ideology is all about "freeing the oppressed" and "class education" as opposed to military action by any means necessary. The same held true for Russians in Afghanistan. The goal was to turn Tibetans and Afghans into commies, not wipe them out.
The British wanted natural resources and trade, not military conquest by the time of Ghandi. Compare their 1950s reaction to their 1850s reaction. Ghandi would have been strapped to a cannon and executed too if he were a Sipai (Sepoy) in 1857.
Liberal historical wishful propaganda is not history. Mantras are not facts, but propaganda tools. Learn to separate the seed from the chaff.
Quote
Force worked for a little while but ultimately failed, as LB pointed out.
You are free to repeat liberal untruth as many times as you wish. It does not make it so, no matter what Goebbels used to say.Quote
And do we really want to choose Spanish Conquistadors and other unsavory types as our role models?
That is irrelevant to your argument. Nice redirection try, though. Dude, you have to clean up your arguing act. It is okay to argue whatever you wish. Just do it in a clean logical way. Your currents methods are simply silly and quite transparent. Besides, the liberal arguing points and techniques make you sound like a troll.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 07:40:18 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 07:45:53 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Shouldn't there be a "Gresham's Law" for discussion fora?
Nice try. I suppose you believe yourself to be the "good money"? Hehehe. Feel free to run for the "moral" hill, when you cannot take the field of logic.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 08:06:34 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
Shouldn't there be a "Gresham's Law" for discussion fora?
Nice try. I suppose you believe yourself to be the "good money"? Hehehe. Feel free to run for the "moral" hill, when you cannot take the field of logic.Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 08:33:44 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
This is the best list you can come up with? What does Troy have to do with Nagasaki?
Troy was wiped out by the people they were fighting. Nagasaki was, for all i ntents and purposes, wiped out by the people they were fighting. They are both successful examples of force being used. Again, how much trouble has Troy given Greece in the last 2500 years? How much trouble has Japan given the US in the last 60 years?Quote
And do we really want to choose Spanish Conquistadors and other unsavory types as our role models?
If thats what it takes to defeat radically fundamentalist Islam, bring it on....
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 08:44:52 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
This is the best list you can come up with? What does Troy have to do with Nagasaki?
Troy was wiped out by the people they were fighting. Nagasaki was, for all i ntents and purposes, wiped out by the people they were fighting. They are both successful examples of force being used. Again, how much trouble has Troy given Greece in the last 2500 years? How much trouble has Japan given the US in the last 60 years?Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:03:15 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Actually the city of Troy was rebuilt and was continuously occupied for thousands of years.
Not by TROJANS it wasn't - hence the archeological search for Troy - which would not have been necessary if it were occupied AS SUCH BY SUCH into historical times.Quote
Nagasaki continues to be a major city in Japan. Neither example has anything to do with guerilla warfare.
Not familiar with the Burma campaign, parts of the Phillipine Islands camapaign, parts of Gudalcanal, etc I see...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 09:10:11 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
Actually the city of Troy was rebuilt and was continuously occupied for thousands of years.
Not by TROJANS it wasn't - hence the archeological search for Troy - which would not have been necessary if it were occupied AS SUCH BY SUCH into historical times.Quote
Nagasaki continues to be a major city in Japan. Neither example has anything to do with guerilla warfare.
Not familiar with the Burma campaign, parts of the Phillipine Islands camapaign, parts of Gudalcanal, etc I see...Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:15:14 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: richyoung
I must admit, Rabbi flees from the field of competing ideas with the most colorful prose - I must nominate him for the Brave Sir Robert award for gallant running away...
I havent run away. But you've failed to answer my objections to your arguments and act like I am the one shirking.No, when will you come to grips with the Saatchi & Saatchi campaign and see your position is hopeless?
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:29:29 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I havent run away.
Keep telling yourself that, but I think you are an Army of One when it comes to that position...Quote
But you've failed to answer my objections to your arguments and act like I am the one shirking.
You've been answered. Your reply was a nonsequiter involving baseball and operating systems vendors.Quote
No, when will you come to grips with the Saatchi & Saatchi campaign and see your position is hopeless?
Don't see what any of this has to do with brand name recognition.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote
No, when will you come to grips with the Saatchi & Saatchi campaign and see your position is hopeless?
Don't see what any of this has to do with brand name recognition.The Israelites failed to uproot the Canaanites, despite Divine assistance. I have failed to uproot some weeds in my garden. Would you suggest blowing up the ground? No, of course not.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2006, 09:48:18 AM
You're both pulling each other off a cliff, here. Sort of a dual tailspin. All rich was trying to do was point out some places where "overwhelming military force" has been successful in resolving a conflict. Whether Troy was ever rebuilt isn't relevant. Whether we should behave exactly like the Conquistadors in every particular is not at issue. The question was whether Troy was defeated by overwhelming military force or not. The same goes for all other examples.
rich, quit getting balled up, and stick to the main point.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:51:01 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: richyoung
Quote
No, when will you come to grips with the Saatchi & Saatchi campaign and see your position is hopeless?
Don't see what any of this has to do with brand name recognition.Quote
Using irrelevant examples to show a non-existent point and using equally irrelevant arguments against valid examples is no way to argue.
Ah, but what is and isn't "relevant". How convenient to dismass all counter examples to an over-stated hypothesis as "irrelevant". So lets GET RELEVANT. How about them Carthaginians? "Carthage delanda est" - and it was! No more stuff out of that bunch of child-murdering reprobates - EVER! Stirred up any trouble lately? Or them Incans? How about the Aztecs? Apaches? Neanderthal Man? The Dodo? The Knights Templar?Overwhelming power sure seemed to work in Sodom and its neighborhood, yes? I seem to recall God openeing a can of whup-ass on the Pharoh, on top of some plagues. That seemed to work too.Quote
The Israelites failed to uproot the Canaanites, despite Divine assistance. I have failed to uproot some weeds in my garden. Would you suggest blowing up the ground? No, of course not.
IF Osama is hiding in your crab grass, I say "bombs away"...
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:52:05 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 09:53:09 AM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi, rich,
You're both pulling each other off a cliff, here. Sort of a dual tailspin. All rich was trying to do was point out some places where "overwhelming military force" has been successful in resolving a conflict. Whether Troy was ever rebuilt isn't relevant. Whether we should behave exactly like the Conquistadors in every particular is not at issue. The question was whether Troy was defeated by overwhelming military force or not. The same goes for all other examples.
rich, quit getting balled up, and stick to the main point.
Fistful, overwhelming military force tends to win battles, sometimes even wars. That doesnt seem to be the issue. The issue is whether we should adopt the tactics of history's worst criminals in this conflict or whether that might, just maybe, decrease our own moral stature and legitimacy.You're both pulling each other off a cliff, here. Sort of a dual tailspin. All rich was trying to do was point out some places where "overwhelming military force" has been successful in resolving a conflict. Whether Troy was ever rebuilt isn't relevant. Whether we should behave exactly like the Conquistadors in every particular is not at issue. The question was whether Troy was defeated by overwhelming military force or not. The same goes for all other examples.
rich, quit getting balled up, and stick to the main point.
One of my issues with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Israeli public life has been so brutalized by it that some of the rhetoric on the Israeli side is really no different from what Hamas et al say on the Arab side.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 10:01:45 AM
Seriously.
I'm tired of my country being "Johnny on the Spot" whenever some turd-world (usually Muslim) kleptocracy has an earthquacke or flood or tsunami or hurricane, to turn around and see these same folks, at the behest of their state-run, state-edited equivalent of the Drive-By Media, burning my flag in their streets and voting against us at the UN. So be it.
The next country to have terrorists in it should be told, plain and simple: You got 6 weeks to fix this on your own - we'll give you all the help we can. If you can't handle it in 6 weeks, WE'RE gonna do it - and we won't be very gentle about it. If you get in the way, well, you're either WITH us or AGAINST us - choose wisely!
Arabs don't respect negotiation, nor do they negotiate in good faith. Israel has given them 98% of what the so-called "Palestinians" wanted - and gets rocketed in return. There IS NO COMPROMISE with vermin that will slay innocents - only victory. By their choice, it will be a brutal victory - but no more brutal on them than they would be on us, should we lack the will to win. Western civillizationis in a fight TO THE DEATH with Wahabi and other fundamentalist Islam. We better wake up and start fighting.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2006, 10:13:00 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Let's highlight one of the key quotes from the document:
The more force used, the less effective it is.
A more self-serving, patently false sentence I have never seen. These places wring a few bells?The more force used, the less effective it is.
Carthage
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Troy
Incans
Aztecs
Plains Indians
Gettysburg
...just off of the top of my head. Force seemed to work pretty good on them. Seen any Carthaginians lately? Trojans, (not the prophalactic kind)?
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 10:17:19 AM
Quote from: fistful
For example, we can ethically copy the Conquistadors in some of their military strategy without doing everything else they did.
Exactly. Compare and contrast how the Western Allies treated their sectors of conquered Germany, vs. the Soviet sectors, (ignoring, for the sake of argument, Eisenhower's deliberate starvation of POWS). The Marshall Plan vs. Rape and Pillage - even though we were as ruthless in conquest, we were much more benign as conquerors. The rapid rebound of (West) German industry played no small role in helping win the Cold War.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 10:31:13 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Fistful, overwhelming military force tends to win battles, sometimes even wars. That doesnt seem to be the issue. The issue is whether we should adopt the tactics of history's worst criminals in this conflict or whether that might, just maybe, decrease our own moral stature and legitimacy.
You are changing your position in mid-argument but refuse to recognize the change. You and Lobotomy boy argued that "every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed".
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 10:37:21 AM
Quote
I'm tired of my country being "Johnny on the Spot" whenever some turd-world (usually Muslim) kleptocracy has an earthquacke or flood or tsunami or hurricane, to turn around and see these same folks, at the behest of their state-run, state-edited equivalent of the Drive-By Media, burning my flag in their streets and voting against us at the UN.
That's what happens when we allow the liberals and globalists to present an image of the country as the Global Policeman/SocNanny. As a country, we should cut the crap and unversally and consistently promote OUR national interests, at the potential detriment of everybody and everything else. This country is being murdered every day by liberal media that do everything they can to exterminate the country's last bulwark - American nationalism. Why? Because things like nationalism and national interests are the DEVIL for multiculturalist globalist statist socialists that want World Government and World Welfare.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 12:52:45 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Ever been to Fort Sill?
Not yet, but one day I will.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 07:02:23 PM
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 09, 2006, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: richyoung
I must admit, Rabbi flees from the field of competing ideas with the most colorful prose - I must nominate him for the Brave Sir Robert award for gallant running away...
My take on it was that he, like me, came to the conclusion that at some point badgering someone who is clearly unhinged goes from being productive to just plain cruel, which is why I quit participating in this bizarre conversation, but something has been bothering me to the point where I need to ask CAnnoneer a question: what is your ultimate strategy? Your proposal to wage total war on Islamic culture is just a tactic. Think of strategy as the answer to the question: what do I ultimately hope to accomplish? What do I want the ultimate end point of my actions to be? Tactics are the methods you use to achieve your strategy.Your tactics seem to be to wage total war against Islamic culture. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? If your strategy is to make the world safer for Western Christian culture, this is a hell of a counterproductive strategy because your tactics will only serve to instigate the Islamic world to attace Western Christian culture. Unless, of course, you kill every last man, woman, and child in the Islamic world. I thought you understood this, which is why I call your tactics "genocide."
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a method to your madness. Perhaps you do have a well-conceived strategy. If so, please share it with us?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 09, 2006, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
your tactics will only serve to instigate the Islamic world to attace Western Christian culture. Unless, of course, you kill every last man, woman, and child in the Islamic world.[1] I thought you understood this, which is why I call your tactics "genocide."[2]
1. The Islamic world IS attacking the West. Not keeping up on current events, I see. Any effective tactic will makes things worse before they get better. 2. A severe and slanderous jump to conclusions. But I'm not buying that as your actual motivation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 09, 2006, 07:01:33 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 03:37:25 AM
Quote from: fistful
Oh, I was going to ask in stunned disbelief - Is this thing still alive?
The thread that wouldnt die.But you're the one not keeping up with current events. Did you see where Indonesia has declared war on us? Did you see those Bosnian suicide bombers at US embassies? What about Saudi Arabia detonating its first nuclear bomb? Oops, no none of those things happened. I guess the whole Islamic world is not at war with us. But if anyone was stupid enough to sign on to loosecanoneer's proposals that would be pretty much a guarantee.
Post by: HankB on October 10, 2006, 04:07:14 AM
Quote
What about Saudi Arabia detonating its first nuclear bomb?
No, our friends the Saudis are just funding madrassas across the world which are training the next generation of terrorists. They're also supplying clerics to bring their Wahabi brand of Islamic extremism to the US, especially in our prisons.
Post by: richyoung on October 10, 2006, 04:09:57 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
Oh, I was going to ask in stunned disbelief - Is this thing still alive?
The thread that wouldnt die.But you're the one not keeping up with current events. Did you see where Indonesia has declared war on us?
Quote
Did you see those Bosnian suicide bombers at US embassies?
No, but I DID see Iranian and Al Quieda trained "volunteers" infiltrating and radicalizing the Bosnian Muslims - I presume you noticed that, too...Quote
What about Saudi Arabia detonating its first nuclear bomb?
I beleive you typed that - should read "Iran detonating its first nuclear bomb", which will be any day now...Quote
Oops, no none of those things happened. I guess the whole Islamic world is not at war with us.
Just the ones driving the train...
Post by: roo_ster on October 10, 2006, 04:59:09 AM
1. Somebody asks "What can we do about the problem?"
2. Folks respond with what has been effective in the past.
3. The asker & fellow travelers get all bent outta shape, denying settled history & slinging accusations.
4. More historical examples are provided.
5. Even more denial of history that does not accord with their highly refined sensibility.
While folks in the West tut-tut and denounce the methods used to fight an existential war between civilizations, our enemies continue to saw off heads & plot more outrages...all the while relying on our highly refined sensibilities to accomplish 3/4 of their tasks for them.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 05:04:12 AM
Quote from: jfruser
This thread has been pretty entertaining.
1. Somebody asks "What can we do about the problem?"
2. Folks respond with what has been effective in the past.
3. The asker & fellow travelers get all bent outta shape, denying settled history & slinging accusations.
4. More historical examples are provided.
5. Even more denial of history that does not accord with their highly refined sensibility.
While folks in the West tut-tut and denounce the methods used to fight an existential war between civilizations, our enemies continue to saw off heads & plot more outrages...all the while relying on our highly refined sensibilities to accomplish 3/4 of their tasks for them.
Actually it goes like this:1. Somebody asks "What can we do about the problem?"
2. Folks respond with what has been effective in the past.
3. The asker & fellow travelers get all bent outta shape, denying settled history & slinging accusations.
4. More historical examples are provided.
5. Even more denial of history that does not accord with their highly refined sensibility.
While folks in the West tut-tut and denounce the methods used to fight an existential war between civilizations, our enemies continue to saw off heads & plot more outrages...all the while relying on our highly refined sensibilities to accomplish 3/4 of their tasks for them.
Solutions offered have no chance whatsoever of ever being implemented, thus remaining the province of Keyboard Kommandos and other whackos.
Solutions offered don't differ that much from what our enemies are proposing, leading some of us to wonder if we really are morally superior.
Examples given have failed largely, or are completely irrelevant, or mythical in one case. Plenty of counter examples are dismissed for extraneous reasons.
Greshams Law applies to discussion, as bad arguments drive out good.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 05:30:25 AM
That's Keyboard Commando, to you!
I see what you're saying. I'm not saying things can't get worse. In fact, I am expecting them to. I was only pointing out that the "Islamic world" is currently at war with us - not just a few wackos. Even if the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people, what would that matter? They have no say. And the hope that we can somehow keep Islamic sentiment on our side doesn't fit with what's happening. Not when the press around the world keeps working for the terrorist side, constantly reminding the world of the US's real or supposed wrong-doing.
Post by: richyoung on October 10, 2006, 06:08:46 AM
Rich
PS - perhaps there is little to no chance of implimenting this - NOW. Part of the duty of those of us advocating more vigorous persecution of this war decarled against us is to persuade the rest...
Your "Keyboard Kommando",
Rich
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 06:38:31 AM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Your proposal to wage total war on Islamic culture is just a tactic. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? If your strategy is to make the world safer for Western Christian culture
Answered your own question.Quote
this is a hell of a counterproductive strategy because your tactics will only serve to instigate the Islamic world to attace Western Christian culture.
They already are, as pointed out by others. If implemented, my tactic will escalate the conflict indeed, but it will also solve the problem in the long run. You can wait for gangrene to eat the whole body or amputate the limb. You prefer to wait in the hopes that the gangrene disappears on its own. Certainly there is a non-zero but minuscule probability that it will. That's a gamble that no realist would take. I'd rather be a living realist than a dead idealist. It is your right to choose the latter, but also your responsibility to limit that choice to yourself. Quote
Unless, of course, you kill every last man, woman, and child in the Islamic world. I thought you understood this, which is why I call your tactics "genocide."
I think it is ludicrous to believe that my tactic will come to that. History supports my views. On the other hand, if we are playing hypothetics here and you just want to gauge my resolve, then I freely admit as I have done before, that "genocide" will be the final viable option if everything else fails. As a gunowner, you would kill a person to protect your own life from mortal danger, yet you would not let your culture kill another culture that puts it in mortal danger? I see a contradiction.
My biggest misgiving about the situation is the realization that our own civilization is eating itself from inside but doubts, idiocies, impracticalities, socialism, multiculturalism, lies, and suicide bombings by all sorts of misguided individuals of all flavors of political thought. Having been so successful in the past, we have forgotten what made us successful in the first place, and now indulge in all sorts of ridiculously impractical behavior to satisfy dainty sensibilities and abberrant tastes. A mounting portion of our culture is decadent, idiotic, and perverse to the extreme. Perhaps all that has happened is a beneficial reality check to snap us back from the realm of pink dreams to the realm of solid reality.
Then again, maybe not. Just more recently, one of the news networks had a segment about how Islam has become more popular in America because of the level of coverage in the media. They showed some American woman converted and dressed in the traditional muslim headgear and robes and she cheerfully bantered how all that has happened has made her realize that Islam is a religion of peace and she converted and was finally peaceful, or some such rubbish. Bleh.
Post by: roo_ster on October 10, 2006, 07:02:24 AM
Quote from: TR
Examples given have failed largely
Well, yeah, and in the long run we (and our civilizations) are all dead, anyway.In the short(er) run, say tens & hundreds of years, such solutions as described earlier have been effective:
1. Brits did well enough to maintain political control of S Africa for decades
2. Israel is still a viable country, nearly 60 years later
3. Brits defeated the marxists in Malaysia & sauid & turned the countries over to non-marxists
4. USA & RSVN defeated Viet Cong. It took a conventional invasion* for NVN to topple RSVN
5. The Iberian peninsula had a run of over 500 years after giving muslims the boot (1492-today)
6. The Romans had a good run against the Celts in Iberia & Gaul (1st century BC to 5th century AD)
7. Charlemagne made like Ann Coulter in chain mail versus the Saxons by crushing them in battle, killing thier warriors out of hand, destroying their holy places, and forcibly converting them to Christianity.
(Many more exmples could be provided showing lasting and profound changes after clashes of civlizations. The folks who say, "Violence doesn't solve anything," haven't cracked open a history book or dealt with much with humans outside of contemporary middle & upper class western civilization.)
Quote from: TR
Solutions offered don't differ that much from what our enemies are proposing, leading some of us to wonder if we really are morally superior.
George Orwell confronted such vexing issues in his time as well:Quote from: George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler's [i
Spanish Testament[/i] for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938]You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out.
We chew over the issues and try less intrusive & less destructive means until those means are shown ineffective. Just as the COTUS is not a suicide pact, we ought not let our highly refined sensibilites hamstring our efforts of civilizational survival. William Henry III wrote, "It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose." I am of the opinion that Western Civilization is not only good and worth fighting for, but that it is the pinnacle of human achievement and civilization and morality.
* And cutting off military aid to RSVN by the US Congress after Watergate, to include food & medicine
Post by: Darwin on October 10, 2006, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: fistful
Any effective tactic will makes things worse before they get better.
This is an oxymoron, since no tactic will ever be effective without a coherent strategy. You spout tactics out your old wazoo, but I see not one word about a coherent strategy. Here's how you formulate a strategy--ask yourself what do you hope to accomplish with your tactics?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 08:06:25 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Quote from: TR
Examples given have failed largely
Well, yeah, and in the long run we (and our civilizations) are all dead, anyway.In the short(er) run, say tens & hundreds of years, such solutions as described earlier have been effective:
1. Brits did well enough to maintain political control of S Africa for decades
2. Israel is still a viable country, nearly 60 years later
3. Brits defeated the marxists in Malaysia & sauid & turned the countries over to non-marxists
4. USA & RSVN defeated Viet Cong. It took a conventional invasion* for NVN to topple RSVN
5. The Iberian peninsula had a run of over 500 years after giving muslims the boot (1492-today)
6. The Romans had a good run against the Celts in Iberia & Gaul (1st century BC to 5th century AD)
7. Charlemagne made like Ann Coulter in chain mail versus the Saxons by crushing them in battle, killing thier warriors out of hand, destroying their holy places, and forcibly converting them to Christianity.
(Many more exmples could be provided showing lasting and profound changes after clashes of civlizations. The folks who say, "Violence doesn't solve anything," haven't cracked open a history book or dealt with much with humans outside of contemporary middle & upper class western civilization.)
The French lost in Vietnam and Algeria
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
Algeria is a very good model as the French were absolutely vicious, to the point the public was disgusted with it all. and the more the French behaved like animals the more the Algerians lined up behind the terrorists. And that is always the advantage guerrila forces enjoy. All the have to do is hold out until the other side gets sick of it.
And I dont recall anyone here saying violence doesnt solve anything.
Post by: Darwin on October 10, 2006, 08:11:37 AM
Instead, we went in with no strategy whatsoever and made almost all the same mistakes the French made half a century earlier.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 08:21:59 AM
Quote from: richyoung
I would rather be VICTORIOUS, than "morally superior",
Not me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 08:23:42 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: fistful
Any effective tactic will makes things worse before they get better.
This is an oxymoron, since no tactic will ever be effective without a coherent strategy. You spout tactics out your old wazoo, but I see not one word about a coherent strategy. Here's how you formulate a strategy--ask yourself what do you hope to accomplish with your tactics?Post by: Darwin on October 10, 2006, 08:32:37 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 10, 2006, 08:35:49 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Again, you are forgetting the Notre Dame campaign of 1985 and the Miami Dolphins. What on earth does Israel have to do with this?
The French lost in Vietnam and Algeria
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
Algeria is a very good model as the French were absolutely vicious, to the point the public was disgusted with it all. and the more the French behaved like animals the more the Algerians lined up behind the terrorists. And that is always the advantage guerrila forces enjoy. All the have to do is hold out until the other side gets sick of it.
Carthage. C-A-R-T-H-A-G-E. Any trouble out of them lately? How about the Imperial Japanese Navy? The Apache tribe? The Bay of Pigs invaders? Was it milk and cookies Castro used to convince them to cease and desist? How about the Symbionese Liberation Army - seen Patty Hearst holding up any banks with a machine gun lately? The Trojans have been very silent in the bride-napping business for 2 - 3 centuries - how come? Why isn't modern day Romania Islamic - could it have something to do with how "Vlad the Impaler" got his name? How about Israel? Wasn't it supposed ot be destroyed in '48, '67, '73, etc, etc, etc? Was it sternly worded diplomatic notes, or force of arms that has preserved the state of Israel so far? Is it love of their fellow man that keeps Red China from grabbing the "province in rebellion" otherwise known as Taiwan, or is it the realization that if they try, Bejing is going up in a mushroom cloud? Was it Christian Charity that kept the Soviet Union at bay for the length of the Cold War, or the certain knowledge that Mutually Assured Destruction was a button-push away?The French lost in Vietnam and Algeria
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
Algeria is a very good model as the French were absolutely vicious, to the point the public was disgusted with it all. and the more the French behaved like animals the more the Algerians lined up behind the terrorists. And that is always the advantage guerrila forces enjoy. All the have to do is hold out until the other side gets sick of it.
Quote
And I dont recall anyone here saying violence doesnt solve anything.
Allow me to refresh your memeory:Coutesy of Lobotomy Boy/Darwin:
Quote
I think this is self-evident in that every example of the use of Draconian military force throughout history has ultimately failed, ...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 09:31:35 AM
Maybe you stop and focus on why France lost Algeria and Vietnam and why the U.S. never stopped Pancho Villa.
And I think Lobotmy Boy's comment was in regard to guerilla warfare, not general conventional wars.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 09:37:16 AM
Quote from: Darwin
My mistake--it was CAnnoneer who is all tactic and no strategy. I confuse the two of you sometimes. I apologize.
I'm really torn about how to take that. Should I be pleased or a little embarassed? Anyway, check out the Civil War thread, and the long-dead discussion about evolution, "Can't take it anymore." Those should help you keep us seperate.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 09:38:29 AM
You know you are completely wrong about Notre Dame and the St. Louis Browns - or whoever. Admit defeat.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 09:51:33 AM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi,
You know you are completely wrong about Notre Dame and the St. Louis Browns - or whoever. Admit defeat.
Well, college soccer was never my sport You know you are completely wrong about Notre Dame and the St. Louis Browns - or whoever. Admit defeat.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
The French lost in Vietnam and Algeria
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
So you seriously argue that in all of the above, the military had their hands completely untied to achieve a solution or even that such a solution was the goal of the enforcer even if license had been granted?
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 10:37:26 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Darwin
My mistake--it was CAnnoneer who is all tactic and no strategy. I confuse the two of you sometimes. I apologize.
I'm really torn about how to take that. Should I be pleased or a little embarassed?Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 10:47:40 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Carthage wasn't a guerilla war. Germania was and the Romans never pacified the place.
Germania was not a guerrilla warfare either. Check your history. It was a series of uprisings. Eventually the Romans decided it was more trouble than it was worth, because what they wanted was provinces that paid taxes, not a depopulated wilderness. You yourself are making a mess of your arguments. The reason is, because you ALREADY have decided on the answer, and thus cripple your own investigative capabilities.Quote
why France lost Algeria and Vietnam and why the U.S. never stopped Pancho Villa.
They failed because neither was ready to go all the way. The jihadists are. You are not? You lose. War is in the will.Quote
And I think Lobotmy Boy's comment was in regard to guerilla warfare, not general conventional wars.
He is wrong in both cases.
Post by: richyoung on October 10, 2006, 10:51:51 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Have you missed your meds today?
...opens with the obligatory personal insult/attack. So much for the "armed POLITE society"...Quote
What is this word salad of conflicts? Carthage wasn't a guerilla war.
Like most prolonged conflicts, the conflict between Rome and Carthage/Hannibal included both conventional military action and aspects of guerilla warfare, most particularly in the interval when Hannibal refused to march on Rome after Cannae, but instead embarked on a scorched earth/terror campaign to convinve tribes only recently alligned with Rome to switch side. Also his post-Carthage mercenary carrer had guerilla aspects.Quote
Germania was and the Romans never pacified the place.
So? How did the Morro tribes guerilla campaign play out against the US in the Phillipines? How did the Plains Indians guerilla campaign against the "blue coats" end up? Who ended up winning, the IRA or the Brits? When Dug-Out Doug landed at Inchon, the cut-off North Koreans didn't disappear - they waged guerilla warfare. That is, they did, until the South Koreans ruthlessly eliminated them. How about the Brits in Malasia? The fact that you can list a FAILED counter-guerilla operation, doesn't mean that they ALL failed.Quote
...you seem fixated on showing that superior force wins conflicts.
Not always, perhaps. But thats the way the samrt money is going to wager...Quote
Maybe you stop and focus on why France lost Algeria and Vietnam...
Being bled white in two world wars, the second of which they changed sides twice, placing them in a position to rely on foreign mercenaries, mostly of their former enemy (ex-SS) to do their fighting for them, which, as I'm sure you already know, is a sure symptom of an empire in terminal decline, a la Rome. Plus the OSS, apparently not being clued in on the Manhattan Project, arming 50,000 Vietnamese Communists to fight the Japanese right before Hiroshima didn't help...Quote
and why the U.S. never stopped Pancho Villa.
In what way did the US NOT stop Villa? What of note did he accomplish AFTER the Punitive Expedition, except get his butt kicked, retire, and get assassinated?Quote
And I think Lobotmy Boy's comment was in regard to guerilla warfare, not general conventional wars.
Either way,'tis still false...
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
The French lost in Vietnam and Algeria
The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
So you seriously argue that in all of the above, the military had their hands completely untied to achieve a solution or even that such a solution was the goal of the enforcer even if license had been granted?The British ultimately lost all their colonies.
The U.S. failed to neutralize Pancho Villa
The Cubans failed to stop Castro.
Calling Vietnam a U.S. victory is laughable, given what happened.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 11:46:32 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Keep in mind that nuclear weapons weren't invented until 1945 and that rendering a populated area a denuded, unliveable wilderness is generally unacceptable to most civilized people.
Remember who you're talking to.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 11:49:14 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
Keep in mind that nuclear weapons weren't invented until 1945 and that rendering a populated area a denuded, unliveable wilderness is generally unacceptable to most civilized people.
Remember who you're talking to.Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 11:52:57 AM
I just thought it was kind of funny you'd advise CAnnoneer to keep in mind what others find acceptable. As if he cares.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 11:59:31 AM
Quote from: fistful
Unless he allows innocents to escape from the area first.
I just thought it was kind of funny you'd advise CAnnoneer to keep in mind what others find acceptable. As if he cares.
Remember what happened to King Saul and the Amalekites.I just thought it was kind of funny you'd advise CAnnoneer to keep in mind what others find acceptable. As if he cares.
I doubt he cares. That is why his opinion is worthless.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Remember what happened to King Saul and the Amalekites.
Hum a few bars.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 01:24:03 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
Remember what happened to King Saul and the Amalekites.
Hum a few bars.Post by: Darwin on October 10, 2006, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
So you seriously argue that in all of the above, the military had their hands completely untied to achieve a solution or even that such a solution was the goal of the enforcer even if license had been granted?
The few U.S. commanders in Iraq who have any experience and/or training in guerilla warfare who have written the texts I've read on the conflict so far ("Twice Armed," by Col. Allen King, and the soon to be published "A General Speaks Out," by Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, both from Zenith Press), have both pointed out the brutality of the French in Algeria, tactics much like those advocated by CAnnoneer, as one of the primary causes for their being beaten by insurgents. In other words, no one was tying the hands of the French military in Algeria, and that was part of the problem; had their hands been tied, they might have stood a better chance of success.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Tell me what those countries should have done that they didnt do. Keep in mind that nuclear weapons weren't invented until 1945 and that rendering a populated area a denuded, unliveable wilderness is generally unacceptable to most civilized people.
You again answered your own question. If it is unacceptable to do what you can and must, then your hands are not really untied, are they?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
No, I know very well. And if loosecanoneer responds as I expect he will have no grounds to claim he isnt promoting genocide.
The plan we talked about does not promote genocide, as fistful pointed out multiple times. Now you are changing the conditions while pretending that you are not. There are only three possibilities to explain such behavior: intellectual dishonesty and/or logical deficiency. Let us know which it is.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
Tell me what those countries should have done that they didnt do. Keep in mind that nuclear weapons weren't invented until 1945 and that rendering a populated area a denuded, unliveable wilderness is generally unacceptable to most civilized people.
You again answered your own question. If it is unacceptable to do what you can and must, then your hands are not really untied, are they?Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: fistful
I just thought it was kind of funny you'd advise CAnnoneer to keep in mind what others find acceptable. As if he cares.
Objective reality does not. Why should objective estimates do?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I doubt he cares. That is why his opinion is worthless.
And logic takes a dive again...So long as you believe that (your) ethics trumps history, logic, objective reality, or anything else for that matter, you live in a dreamy bubble of your own making. Sweet dreams!
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 10, 2006, 03:20:51 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
Have you missed your meds today?
...opens with the obligatory personal insult/attack. So much for the "armed POLITE society"...Quote
The fact that you can list a FAILED counter-guerilla operation, doesn't mean that they ALL failed.
So very obvious, yet so viciously ignored.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
Remember what happened to King Saul and the Amalekites.
Hum a few bars.Post by: The Rabbi on October 10, 2006, 05:53:43 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
Hum a few bars.
He spared some sheep to offer a sacrifice. The Amalekites were skin changers and so escaped and the evil Haman came from them.Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2006, 06:08:13 PM
Post by: Sindawe on October 10, 2006, 06:22:04 PM
Quote
Skin changers?
Shapeshifters. Those able to alter their form from one animal to another
Post by: De Selby on October 10, 2006, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: The Rabbi
No, I know very well. And if loosecanoneer responds as I expect he will have no grounds to claim he isnt promoting genocide.
The plan we talked about does not promote genocide, as fistful pointed out multiple times. Now you are changing the conditions while pretending that you are not. There are only three possibilities to explain such behavior: intellectual dishonesty and/or logical deficiency. Let us know which it is.The idea that you can discredit a religion which posits an invisible God by destroying some stones and buildings is ridiculous. Brutality is the best gift you could ever give the terrorists, since it would unite the vast majority of the Muslim world with them against the rest of the world. You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.
Of course, you could always try genocide...but if that's what you're after, well, we should be sending people like you to guantanamo alongside the terrorists.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 03:09:44 AM
Quote from: shootinstudent
The idea that you can discredit a religion which posits an invisible God by destroying some stones and buildings is ridiculous.
Some have pointed out that the Kaaba is protected by Allah, and if it were destroyed, this would completely discredit Allah, thereby destroying Islam. Of course, this would be meaningless to more "liberal" Muslims, but they are not the ones we are worried about.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2006, 03:28:25 AM
Where are there any indications that the radicals are so attached to the Kaba that destroying it would cause them to stop attacking western targets?
I've heard of no such thing. All Muslims acknowledge that the stone was perverted into an idol for a long period of time...I see no reason why destroying/perverting it again would cause any of them, even radicals, to lose faith.
A much more likely scenario would be that a wave of terror attacks would hit the united states in response, and the radicals would automatically say "See! Here's God's retribution for attacking his religion!"
They will believe what they want no matter what
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 03:39:57 AM
Just so you know, I'm not all on board to follow General CAnnoneer. I hope it doesn't have to come to that.
Post by: 280plus on October 11, 2006, 04:07:47 AM
Total World Muslim Population 2006- 1,790,000,000
Divided by
Total World population 2006 - 6,525,170,300
equals= 27%
Are you SURE you want to go pulverize their stone?
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 06:15:30 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
When one runs out of logic, one must emote.
It doesn't seem like he ran out of logic to me. Rather, it seems that he ran out of patience in dealing with a genocidal maniac.Quote from: shootinstudent
You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.
You have hit on the crux of the problem with CAnnoneer's so-called "logic": it's all tactic and no strategy. The simple fact is that CAnnoneer has no idea what would happen if we implemented his tactics because he has not even thought about the end results of his tactics. To imagine an end result is to formulate a strategy, and CAnnoneer is, like the Bush administration's foriegn policy, all tactic and no strategy. Rather, he seeks to gratify his base emotions and bomb the Islamic world even further into the stone age, consequences be damned. Like all emotional infants, he selfishly seeks to gratify his base instincts without thought for how that effects others. Again, this could be a description of the Bush administration's foriegn policy.Quote from: shootinstudent
They will believe what they want no matter what
As will CAnnoneer, I'm afraid.
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 06:46:28 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Are you SURE you want to go pulverize their stone?
If they refuse to reign in their more extreme "brothers" - what do we have to loose? We can sit around and wait for them to saw our heads off one at a time in al jazeera videos, or we can FIGHT!
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 06:56:30 AM
Quote from: richyoung
If they refuse to reign in their more extreme "brothers" - what do we have to loose?
What do we have to "loose"? I think you know the answer to that alread. Hint: it's black, sticky, carbon-based, and without it our entire way of life will grind to a halt.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 11, 2006, 06:58:27 AM
Quote from: shootinstudent
all the people who leave these nuked cities will be intent on killing you, no matter where they end up.
And you know that how? History does not support your conclusions. Otherwise no invasion and conquest would ever have been successful. Re-read the thread more carefully.Quote
The idea that you can discredit a religion which posits an invisible God by destroying some stones and buildings is ridiculous.
Again, history disagrees with you. A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground. Most people go to a deity for protection. If the deity is shown to be weak, those will turn away. Yes, a few fanatics will not no matter what, and that is why you kill them while re-educating the others.Quote
Brutality is the best gift you could ever give the terrorists, since it would unite the vast majority of the Muslim world with them against the rest of the world.
You are afraid of a short-term deterioration that will produce a long-term victory. As a result, you sentence yourself to a guaranteed long-term failure.Quote
You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.
I am not the one ignoring abundant historical record because it does not agree with my dainty sensibilities. Quote
Of course, you could always try genocide...but if that's what you're after, well, we should be sending people like you to guantanamo alongside the terrorists.
If it comes to that, then that is how it must be. As jtfuser said, if your friends light up a nuke in one of our cities, we'll see just what options are on the table. I would just say that a conventional 9/11 was answered by conventional Afghanistan and Iraq.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 11, 2006, 07:02:37 AM
Quote from: fistful
Some have pointed out that the Kaaba is protected by Allah, and if it were destroyed, this would completely discredit Allah, thereby destroying Islam. Of course, this would be meaningless to more "liberal" Muslims, but they are not the ones we are worried about.
Correct.
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 07:05:14 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: CAnnoneer
When one runs out of logic, one must emote.
It doesn't seem like he ran out of logic to me. Rather, it seems that he ran out of patience in dealing with a genocidal maniac.Quote
Quote from: shootinstudent
You are, plain and simple, living in a fantasy world if you think these kinds of tactics will solve anything.
You have hit on the crux of the problem with CAnnoneer's so-called "logic": it's all tactic and no strategy. The simple fact is that CAnnoneer has no idea what would happen if we implemented his tactics because he has not even thought about the end results of his tactics.Post by: CAnnoneer on October 11, 2006, 07:13:55 AM
Quote from: Darwin
It doesn't seem like he ran out of logic to me. Rather, it seems that he ran out of patience in dealing with a genocidal maniac.
Follow his "performance" in this and other threads. Personal attacks, non-sequiturs, emoting, redirection, third-grade demagogy, absurd black-and-white statements, running for the "moral" hills are standard in his arsenal.Quote from: shootinstudent
problem with CAnnoneer's so-called "logic": it's all tactic and no strategy. The simple fact is that CAnnoneer has no idea what would happen if we implemented his tactics because he has not even thought about the end results of his tactics.
On the contrary, I have thought very carefully about it and used plenty of historical parallels to arrive at my recommendations. You are free to dislike my tactics and disagree with my strategy, but saying the above is simply silly.Quote
Like all emotional infants, he selfishly seeks to gratify his base instincts without thought for how that effects others. Again, this could be a description of the Bush administration's foriegn policy.
This statement above is a self-condemning testament of naivety. If you do not understand why the ruling class decided to invade Iraq and why it wants to remain there, you are hopelessly out of your league in dealing with these issues.
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 07:19:00 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.
You mean like how the Jewish religion disappeared off the face of the earth after millennia of persecution, including Hitler's execution of 6 million of them? Or how Christianity disappeared off the face of the earth after the Romans crushed them? Oh, wait, those religions are still with us. Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again? Also, if you insist that you are not advocating genocide, yet you advocate wiping an entire religion that comprises 27 percent of the earth's population off the face of the earth, I fail to see your distinction between genocide and non-genocide.Quote from: CAnnoneer
You are afraid of a short-term deterioration that will produce a long-term victory.
And what, exactly, does your "long-term victory" look like? I suspect that if you ever bother to think that one through and form a strategy, you may well abandon your tactics.Richyoung, I hesitate to engage you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about (have you ever read "The Art of War?"), but I can't let your slander of T.E. Lawrence go unchallenged. Lawrence once defined tactics as "the means towards a strategic goal, the steps of its staircase." The tactics he advocated were the polar opposite of what you advocate. So what, exactly, is your strategic goal (other than genocide; ie. the extermination of the Muslim religion)?
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 07:23:51 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
On the contrary, I have thought very carefully about it and used plenty of historical parallels to arrive at my recommendations. You are free to dislike my tactics and disagree with my strategy, but saying the above is simply silly.
I'm calling B.S. on that one. We can't disagree with your strategy because you haven't clearly stated it. Sometimes you say your goal is to wipe out the Muslim religion. Other times you say you don't advocate genocide. Which are we to believe? If your goal is genocide, then killing every Muslim has to be your tactic. Fortunately I don't think you'd even get Dick Cheney on board with this idea, so it's highly unlikely that we will pursue your goal or use your tactics.If, as you also say, genocide is not your goal, then what is your goal? If your goal is to subdue the Muslim world, why do you advocate tactics that will accomplish nothing but inflaming the Muslim world?
Quote from: CAnnoneer
This statement above is a self-condemning testament of naivety. If you do not understand why the ruling class decided to invade Iraq and why it wants to remain there, you are hopelessly out of your league in dealing with these issues.
Okay, I'll bite. If I do not understand these things, go ahead and explain them to me.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 11, 2006, 07:26:20 AM
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 07:29:46 AM
Am I missing something?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 11, 2006, 07:34:58 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Okay, I'll bite. If I do not understand these things, go ahead and explain them to me.
In a nutshell, our ruling class wants:1) Israel safe
2) Relative stability in the region
3) "The Oil Must Flow"
4) Strategic positioning for the "end of oil" rush
5) No attacks on home soil
6) Justification for military expenditures
7) Avoid "brutal tactics" as possible
They accomplish or believe they can accomplish all of the above by invading Iraq and holding it in one form or another. So far, they seem to have been proven mostly successful.
Bush has very little to do with anything. Saddam simply was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 07:45:41 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: CAnnoneer
A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.
You mean like how the Jewish religion disappeared off the face of the earth after millennia of persecution, including Hitler's execution of 6 million of them? Or how Christianity disappeared off the face of the earth after the Romans crushed them? Oh, wait, those religions are still with us. Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again? Also, if you insist that you are not advocating genocide, yet you advocate wiping an entire religion that comprises 27 percent of the earth's population off the face of the earth, I fail to see your distinction between genocideThere is a small but influential percentage of Muslims who are jihadists etc. They will garner tremendous following when they are proven right in their contention that the U.S. is waging war on Islam after the U.S. destroys their holiest shrines.
LooseCAnoneer's historical "examples" are all entirely flawed, with the wrong lessons drawn from each, important distinctions ignored, and counter-examples dismissed just because he can't deal with them.
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 08:07:58 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Richyoung, I hesitate to engage you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about
...and the psychological phenomenon known as "projection" displays itself in all its natural glory...Quote
(have you ever read "The Art of War?"),
...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs. And you do...what, exactly for a living? I wait in eager antidcipation...Quote
but I can't let your slander of T.E. Lawrence go unchallenged. Lawrence once defined tactics as "the means towards a strategic goal, the steps of its staircase." The tactics he advocated were the polar opposite of what you advocate.
...perhaps because he was fighting WITH arabs, in nominal support of an arab cause? Do ya think?Quote
So what, exactly, is your strategic goal (other than genocide; ie. the extermination of the Muslim religion)?
GENOCIDE is the extinction of a GENOTYPE: that is to say, it is RACIALLY BASED. What I advocate is application of sufficient force to anyone, of any race, creed, nationality, that seekd to do me and mine harm, to cause them pause to reflect "do I * REALLY * want to keep playing this game?" You know, sorta like Imperial Japan after the two loud booms.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 08:12:48 AM
Quote from: richyoung
...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs. And you do...what, exactly for a living? I wait in eager antidcipation...
ROFLMFAO!!!
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 08:16:51 AM
Quote from: richyoung
...perhaps because he was fighting WITH arabs, in nominal support of an arab cause? Do ya think?
Yes, "ya think," which is why I questioned your entire premise. The fact that you used Lawrence for an example indicated to me that you didn't know what you were talking about and was the primary basis of my questioning of your ability to reason.For the record I publish books on a variety of topics, including military history.
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 08:51:58 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 08:53:56 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: richyoung
...I have two well-highlighted copies of the James Clavell version by Delecorte Press in the bookcase behind me as I type, right next to "The Americna Way Of War" - volumes I rely on as I control oposition forces in computer simulations the U.S. Army uses to train officers, NCOs, warrants, and unit battle staffs. And you do...what, exactly for a living? I wait in eager antidcipation...
ROFLMFAO!!!Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: richyoung
If they refuse to reign in their more extreme "brothers" - what do we have to loose?
What do we have to "loose"? I think you know the answer to that alread. Hint: it's black, sticky, carbon-based, and without it our entire way of life will grind to a halt.(Not to mention we can't rely on them NOT to cut us off - they've done it before)
Post by: roo_ster on October 11, 2006, 09:47:58 AM
Quote from: Darwin
Quote from: CAnnoneer
A number of religions disappeared off the face of the earth when the believers were conquered, their priests killed off, and their idols, relics, and holy places smashed and razed to the ground.
Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?1. Nordic/German paganism. Read up on Charlemagne to see what he did to the Saxons. Recently, some neo-pagans have attempted to revive a pathetic shadow of the original. Good luck with that...
2. Aztec paganism. Seen anybody's heart cut out of their living bodies on top of pyramids in central America, lately?
3. Celtic paganism. A psychological addiction to Lucky Charms does not count.
4. Pretty much every central & south American paganism.
5. Levantine paganism. Not sure if it had a formal name. The dieties were usually called Baal or Baalim.
6. Egyptian paganism. After being a Christian and them a Muslim territory, I'm thinking that it is a thinkg of the past.
Most of the above religions were snuffed out when their adherents were soundly thrashed, repeatedly, by another civilization.
Post by: Darwin on October 11, 2006, 10:07:00 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 11, 2006, 10:11:04 AM
Quote from: Darwin
If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.
You forgot that Ireland wasn't conquered. It, like a lot of the other places mentioned, were the subject of missionary activity.And the Zoroastrians seem to be doing just fine.
Post by: roo_ster on October 11, 2006, 10:11:06 AM
So, is your nickname "Red" Rich at work?
Post by: roo_ster on October 11, 2006, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: Darwin
If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.
Comparable? Not sure about that. It would take some digging to see if any of the old pagan cults in the Levant had any connection with the pre-Islamic Arab pagan religion (and thus some tenuous connection to Islam). Interesting question, though...The usual relation if pagan religions & Islam was, ahh, adversarial. "Convert of be killed" was the muslim response to pagans found in their power.
Anyway, how comparable they are is immaterial to the point. Your question was, "Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?" If you read (and understand!) your history, you will learn that major religions have been wiped from the earth due to civilizational struggle.
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Darwin
If you think Levantine Paganism and Islam are even remotely comparable, there is nothing I could say that you are capable of understanding.
You forgot that Ireland wasn't conquered. It, like a lot of the other places mentioned, were the subject of missionary activity.And the Zoroastrians seem to be doing just fine.
The Celts in Iberia and the rest of western Europe didn't have it so easy, however, after taking it in the face from the Carthaginians, Romans, and Germans.
All religions & their civilizations were subject to Christian missionary activity almost as soon as they were "discovered" by Christendom. The large body of determined men ready and willing to make short choppy motions with sharp objects that accompanied the missionaries was usually the deciding factor, however.
The Scandinavian lands were not conquered, true, though the German lands were. So, about 75% of adherents to Nordic paganism were converted by means of Carolingian conquest & 25% were converted soley by missionary activity.
As for the Aztecs, Incas, the other central & south American religions, Levantine pagans, and Egyptian pagans, conquest is indisputably the cause of their disappearance.
----------
Overly broad statements and rhetorical questions such as, "Which major religions disappeared off the face of the earth again?" only need one example to refute them.
Post by: richyoung on October 11, 2006, 11:15:45 AM
Quote from: jfruser
richyoung:
So, is your nickname "Red" Rich at work?
They call me "El Diablo"....
So, is your nickname "Red" Rich at work?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 11, 2006, 11:23:08 AM
I'm hoping this thread is deleted very soon.