Strategy and violence

[posttrainwreck]

That's something that really grabs my attention. Strategy. It doesn't matter if you agree with the goal of a strategy, it's still interesting to examine and discuss how that goal is being achieved. And strategy is easier to look at objectively, because even if you don't like a particular "team," you can still appreciate the effectiveness of their

Comments

[spikeyapples]

1. thanks for adding me as a friend, though i have no idea why and how you came upon my humble mumble blog

pineapples

[posttrainwreck]

2. Conventional war is one thing, like when you have two states that agree to a general code of conduct. Then, when a people is conquered they can be brought to see the errors of their ways because they were just following orders, like the Allies defeating the Axis in WWII. When the situation is a clash of military industrial power, then you can only hope to prevent the situation (like caring for the German people after WWI instead of demanding reparations and brewing the conditions for another war) or hit them first and hit them hardest

Re: pineapples

[spikeyapples]

i respect what you say, but a) mugabe and the likes do not seem to mind in the least, when their corporate profits are cut(he, lukashenko, and others maybe take little sighs time to time, due to being unable to visit Paris or London, but they still opress their people with gusto), b) prohibition was itself a forceful measure, and in that sense i'd precisely compare it to removal of Saddam and other such actions, c)i am to a point surprised actually, how well did the 'surge' in Iraq go, because we somehow managed to kick the terrorists' butts there, while still wearing kidgloves, which shows that even such a vicious and smart enemy CAN be defeated; d) I believe Vietnamese communists had killed way more people both before and after our invasion, and unlike our actions, directed at particular places presumed to harbor enemy, they carried out planned policies of elimination of whole social strata, especially of intellectuals, in particular school teachers, and affluent and mid-leve farmers-- that is, engaged in open genocide, not unlike

Re: pineapples

[posttrainwreck]

Mugabe: Billionair Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, the largest landowner in Zimbabwe, has been personally propping up the Mugabe regime for quite a while. As economic pressures are already putting the endurance of his reign into question, coupled with epidemics and starvation, I would bet that he will not last another 5 years. If a benevolent world policeman were to skillfully use military force to eject him now, there's no telling what would happen to fill the void left by chaos. But of course, every case is different

Re: pineapples

[spikeyapples]

well, i respectfully disagree with just about all you said:) Zimbabwe-- why wait 5 years, and who knows if they won;t keep this already half-corpse artificially alive for another 50, isntead, make hin a Zombie president or something-- if he can be removed sooner, and by the way, none other than Bishop Tutu has called on the wrold to do that? 5 more years of Mugabe, and the whole nation will die of AIDS, cholera and starvation. Cuba? the sanctions have many holes; conservatives claim that JFK, far from being truly committed to helping anti-Castro insurgents, essentially betrayed them; all other countries of New World, and Europe too, cave in to crazes of Fidel, rather than stand up to him, together with the US, in which case he'd feel that the free world is united in its moral opposition to him, and hence-- the refugee crises(remember when some folks used to hide in Spanish and other embasies i Cuba, and ulitmately they were handed over back to Castro regime?)-- so one might say again, that the problem's not sanctions, but lack thereof

Re: pineapples

[spikeyapples]

as for who won cold war, I think even if one might say that USSR's own flaws did it in, without challenging that system to show its true strength and colors, it wouldn do itself in so soon. its agony would've lasted longer, possibly taking more lives along the way, and almost certainly keeping me from even entering this country in mid-90s. for that alone, i rather credit Ronnie and not Jimmy :) although, admittedly, how much benefit has America reaped from personally my arrival, is of much debate :)) sprry for such a lengthy reply, that didn't even fit into one post. i am not the most laconic speaker, and besides, conversing with you is a pleasure that begs being prolonged as much as possible:)