Canada's Future

[VideCorSpoon]

Didymos,

First off, thank you for the conversation. This is some good stuff.

But anyway. What I said was the affirmative of what you had stated. The relativistic slant is based on the way two different peoples view their government. Chinese have always been totalitarian in nature, and revolve around extreme patriarchical structures. Perhaps the form of government is misplaced by our standards, but the Chinese may be used to an entirely different set of ideals. But the Chinese government did to Tibet what the Americans did to the Native American Indians, only the chinese held a “legitimate” claim to the region. It may not seem right superficially, but the Chinese claim suzerainty over a strategic and essential part of the what is now part of china that dates back to the ancestral lands of the Yuan and Qing.

On the military. Keep in mind that the military didn’t take down the regime of Saddam Hussein once… they did it twice. Why twice? The first gulf war was won but relinquished back to the regime of Saddam Hussein because they knew even then what was involved in an occupation (what we are experiencing now.) Unfortunately, after the first gulf war, the leftist push to cede back to the Saddam regime did some VERY bad things in the long run. While it probably saved a good deal of American lives in the process of withdrawing, it betrayed large portions of the Iraqi population that had sided with the coalition. Those people (Kurds, etc.) died by the millions. And the people that were not exterminated became fanatical Saddam supporters. We are now paying the price for the leftist push out of Iraq during the early nineties.

But how is the middle east crisis a thousand year old story bull? History isn't an important factor? Historical occurances are important and many cannot deny that. War has been constant, but the generalities of war do not deny the locus of major conflicts over the millennia. The current crisis is not relatively modern. People today would like to think that because it’s easier to grasp. That bit of history you cited is the tip of a very large iceberg. One conflict has led to another, etc.

The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one sided experiences more losses than the other. That’s warfare.

On military strategy in Iraq, neither one of us is qualified to give that statement. The only ones that are even remotely qualified to make that call are the boots on the ground in Iraq. They know the situation and the climate. One of the major problems in the past century has been when civilians started to dictate military strategy (wwI trench warfare/ammunition conservation. etc.) The problem with anti-guerrilla warfare is that we aren’t allowed to go the length required to do it. Anti-guerilla warfare is as bloody as any tactics any insurgent could use. Read up on the British Malay emergency. It has all happened before.

Yes the British lost troops in Afghanistan. But the fact that it was 160 years ago is relative. Sounds eerily similar, no? Again… it has all happened before.

[Didymos Thomas]

But anyway. What I said was the affirmative of what you had stated. The relativistic slant is based on the way two different peoples view their government. Chinese have always been totalitarian in nature, and revolve around extreme patriarchical structures. Perhaps the form of government is misplaced by our standards, but the Chinese may be used to an entirely different set of ideals. But the Chinese government did to Tibet what the Americans did to the Native American Indians, only the chinses held a “legitimate” claim to the region. It may not seem right superficially, but the Chinese claim suzerainty over a strategic and essential part of the what is now part of china that dates back to the ancestral lands of the Yuan and Qing.

Jesus man, the whole planet has a history of totalitarianism. That has been, by far, the dominant political system.

You're right to compare the US treatment of Native Americans to the Communist treatment of Tibet.

You're wrong about China's claim. Well, the Chinese government would agree, but history does not. Tibet was never part of the ancestral Yuan, much less ancestral Qing lands. These regimes protected the demilitarized Buddhist state of Tibet and looked to Tibet's Lamas for spiritual guidance. It wasn't until...the 19020's if memory serves me, but it probably doesn't...that Tibet became politically subservient to the Chinese - basically, only very recently. Tibet never recognized subservience to the Chinese Communist government, though the Tibetans did make the offer provided that the Chinese leave Tibet sovereign and isolated.

On the military. Keep in mind that the military didn’t take down the regime of Saddam Hussein once… they did it twice. Why twice? The first gulf war was won but relinquished back to the regime of Saddam Hussein because they knew even then what was involved in an occupation (what we are experiencing now.)

We never entered Baghdad. Saddam never lost power - he was on the verge of absolute defeat.

But how is the middle east crisis a thousand year old story bull? History isn't an important factor. That’s history. You can’t deny that. War has been constant, but the generalities of war do not deny the locus of major conflicts over the millennia. The current crisis is not relatively modern. People today would like to think that because it’s easier to grasp. That bit of history you cited is the tip of a very large iceberg. One conflict has led to another, etc.

Conflict has been ongoing for thousands of years, but the modern conflict has not been going on for thousands of years.

The current crisis is modern - it's the result of Colonialism after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It's not the tip of the iceberg, it's the catalyst for the modern conflict.

The modern conflict can be summed up in this way - the Islamic world fighting for religious and cultural independence from the West which has attempted to dominate the Islamic world following the fall of the Ottomans. It's the fall of the Ottomans, French and British invasions in north Africa, Arabia and India. The modern conflict is not the same conflict as the Crusades, or the same conflict as the Hellenistic invasion. Those older conflicts are important to note historically as they are influential, but they should not be confused with the modern conflict.

The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one sided experiences more losses than the other. That’s warfare.

Right, the ratio is irrelevant. That's my point. Sighting the ratio as an example of US military success or efficiency doesn't hold water.

On military strategy in Iraq, neither one of us is qualified to give that statement. The only ones that are even remotely qualified to make that call are the boots on the ground in Iraq.

Bogus. The boots on the ground know even less. We're talking about a generally poorly educated group of men and women who face death daily. They don't have the time to consider these issues - they have time to try and stay alive.

The problem with anti-guerilla warfare is that we aren’t allowed to go the length required to do it. Anti-guerilla warfare is as bloody as any tactics any insurgent could use. Read up on the British Malay crisis. It has all happened before.

My point exactly. We cannot use the proper tactics for political reasons, thus we cannot win the war.

Yes the British lost troops in Afghanistan. But the fact that it was 160 years ago is relative. Sounds eerily similar, no? Again… it has all happened before.

You mentioned the British because of their high casualties - which was due to the military tactics of the period. The basic problem - the inability to force the population into submission - is the same. The Russians had the same problem in the 80's. Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam.

[VideCorSpoon]

Didymos,

That the whole planet has a history of Totalitarianism is extremely relative. In order to say that, I would have to look through an extremely filtered lens and disregard an enormous amount of facts. As to the historical facts… ok.

But we did win. The whole point was to preserve Kuwait sovereignty. Entering Baghdad may be a contingency of occupation, which we did not do. Saddam never lost power because we did not demand he relinquish that power. Power vacuum was far too dangerous an alternative.

Conflict and modernity is, again, a very relative statement in regards to that theater. We could no more attribute the cause of today’s conflict to post imperial vacuum than we could deny the volumes of history that contribute to the overall problem. So is history systemic? I would think so.

As to your comment on my comment about body counts. Well, I said the ratio was relevant. I didn’t agree with you.

Now this next statement is the red flag in a conversation. You roughly stated that the boots on the ground know even less, equipped with less education and staving off death itself. That seems like a jaded comment and completely disregards the relativistic account of human potential and situation or occupation but is more influenced by propagandist notions. No offense to you… but I have had conversations with those of your mind frame before many a time. Those conversations never end well because they always end in some level of factionalization.

But honestly, they do know more because they are there. It’s that simple. They don’t have left or right propaganda to sway their opinion the way we do. Furthermore, education is an extremely relative statement. No doubt, some are more educated than others. Does that mean that military personnel are dumber than we elevated citizens who look down on the soldiery? Well, Wesley Clark was a Rhodes Scholar. He seems pretty much on the ball. As to the “trying to keep alive” thing. They do have time beyond skipping the bullet. Do they have time to consider these issues? Yes… even more so. They are living it while we theorize on it. But the military is organized enough to understand logistics and human capacity to provide relief and rest time.

As to the anti-guerilla tactics. I was thoroughly unaware that you had posited that view…

As to the British casualty thing… yup. It’s all relative.

(also, to adhere to the topic of the thread... GOD SAVE CANADA!)

[Didymos Thomas]

That the whole planet has a history of Totalitarianism is extremely relative. In order to say that, I would have to look through an extremely filtered lens and disregard an enormous amount of facts. As to the historical facts… ok.

Not really. Monarchy, tyranny (in the classical Greek way) - totalitarianism has been the world's dominant political structe.

But we did win. The whole point was to preserve Kuwait sovereignty. Entering Baghdad may be a contingency of occupation, which we did not do. Saddam never lost power because we did not demand he relinquish that power. Power vacuum was far too dangerous an alternative.

Sure, we won the first Gulf Conflict.

Conflict and modernity is, again, a very relative statement in regards to that theater. We could no more attribute the cause of today’s conflict to post imperial vacuum than we could deny the volumes of history that contribute to the overall problem. So is history systemic? I would think so.

Actually we can. Yes, history is systematic. But this doesn't mean that the Crusades and the modern War on Terror are the same conflict.

As to your comment on my comment about body counts. Well, I said the ratio was relevant. I didn’t agree with you.

Okay, then what's your argument?

Now this next statement is the red flag in a conversation. You roughly stated that the boots on the ground know even less, equipped with less education and staving off death itself. That seems like a jaded comment and completely disregards the relativistic account of human potential and situation or occupation. No offense to you… but I have a conversation with those of your mind frame before many a time. Those conversations never end well.

And I have conversations with those boots on the ground all of the time. They usually end quite well. One of two things happens 1) the soldier knew the war was misguided and has maintained that view or 2) the soldier was gung-ho when shipped out only to return home with the realization that American efforts are futile. I live in a big military town.

But honestly, they do know more because they are there. It’s that simple.

How is this possible? The are there in one place. A soldier in Basra isn't also a soldier in Baghdad and a soldier in Afghanistan at the same time.

Heck, the military leaders are even questionable. They sure didn't know what was going on in Vietnam despite the constant worries of non-military strategy gurus.

They don’t have left or right propaganda to sway their opinion the way we do.

Actually, they do. They are fed military propaganda. Just ask one.

Well, Wesley Clark was a Rhodes Scholar.

And he is a war critic. Go figure.

As to the anti-guerilla tactics. I was thoroughly unaware that you had posited that view…

See here: "The bottom line is that our military strategy in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, does not work. We need to adopt more effective anti-guerrilla tactics if we want to gain a real military advantage in these places - the problem is that this calls for an even more repressive stance towards the citizens of those nations."

[VideCorSpoon]

But to say that the whole planet has a history of totalitarianism is indeed relative. What about the pigmies of Papua New Guinea? (I just made that last bit up… are there pigmies in Papua New Guinea?)

And your dang strait we won! U..S..A .. U..S..A.. Yee HAW! Gunna git me ma shotgun!

I really disagree with you on the fact that the Crusades and the modern war on terror are not related. But that is a relative perspective for another time.

As to the body count statement, my position was this (from post #21); “The ratio of deaths is relevant. The size and nature of opponents change constantly. But the one constant among some others is that one side experiences more losses than the other. That’s warfare.” More precisely, the body count matters because the essential nature of warfare by attrition is a fundamental truth of warfare regardless of the opponent’s idiosyncrasies.

I also know a few people in the military, officers and enlisted. But I would be an existential exoticist to suppose that because I know people who are in the military, I know the temperature of the military in general. Their views are relative to themselves. The military has mixed views about the war, no doubt about that. But your two categories do not encapsulate the average military personnel, only a particular outlook on it. There are others who have a different outlook on their job. Everyone should have their opinions (left or right), but also the duty to fulfill their obligations to the state.

Now that is a good point as to how a soldier in one area can know as much as one in another area. I’m talking about the general feeling of the overall war and the impact on the front lines. Does a soldier in Basra know what’s going on in another part of the conflict? NO. And they are not expected to. But they are connected to the conflict in a way that we are not.

As to military propaganda, would you want to field a demoralized army?

Agreed, Wesley Clarke is indeed a war critic. But that is as a civilian. Wesley Clarke the civilian is different from Wesley Clarke the military General. The retirement of his stars entitle him to a personal opinion. But as a officer under obligation to the state, he was a fantastic general.

As to guerilla tactics, you had assumed that (from post #21) and inferred in post #22, that it was your point exactly. The points are different. I did not see a coincidence in your statements.

(and to adhere to the thread topic: Did you know that Canada has the longest coastline in the world? Also, did you know that the Canadian red tailed beaver is carnivorous and feeds on the flesh of the living every second Tuesday of the month?)

[Holiday20310401]

Actually, I don't understand how the crusades differ much from the middle east war. If you are saying that since the Ottoman downfall the islamics are trying to regain influence and basically get rid of the western culture/ and religion then its islam vs. western and therefore Christianity (but I don't think we have any intentions of establishing Christianity there, right?). And the crusades were about Jerusalem; islam vs. christianity.

Found this comic.

crusades battle.jpg

Why doesn't the USA try to advocate for the islamic religion. It would provide sway to keep the public at bay, of Kiddle East. And then no bystanders for the extremists.
And I don't think that there should be such a broad outlook on totaliarian influences. I'm sure China is much more extreme (totalitarianly) in comparisson to other regimes. I see relations to theocracy and caste systems with centralized govs. I suppose these are like camoflauged dictators. Speaking under religion so as to criticize other cultures that inverse the virtue of the political power.

Canada- And what virtue is there besides sucking up to the USA in war of middle east. Oil? Canada doesn't really use it for electricity anymore, for cars sure, but hopefully cars will develop enough so as to abolish the need. The land should not be necessary in the middle east. Canada is low population, and large land area, and much more fertile than middle east. Religion? Canada has no state to create a bias. There's no market, and resources have no military to protect them.

And it makes sense that the soldiers would not know whats going on because ultimately it is the highest ranks making the big decisions who are not fighting the war at the front lines, who are safely inside a carrier waiting to launch an air strike, or are in their own country well protected by NORAD and whatever anti air systems in place.

[Ruthless Logic]

You probably want the LSD to ware off before you post on these forums, Ruthless. (quote)


The unfortunate aspect of your response is the continued denial of personal assessment, and the subsequent uncomfortable realizations.

[VideCorSpoon]

Holiday,

I think there could be an argument for the relationship between the middle east and the west by examining past interactions and confrontations between different cultures. But I think that Islam in particular is a sort of hyper-identity marker for middle easterners. It has become their definition. Westerners used to work along the same lines with Catholicism (when it was dominant) and Nationalism (when it was put into play). In the past, especially during the crusades, it was the Muslims that were extremely tolerant of the Christians and Jews… even though they did not have to be (i.e. Saladin’s occupation of Jerusalem).

Why doesn’t the US advocate for Islamic religion? How would you feel if Islamic Mullahs were advocating Christian doctrines? (If you are Christian).

As for Chinese totalitarianism… did you know that if you are sentenced to death in china, you have to work to pay for the bullet that kills you? Apparently, it takes one week to pay for the bullet, housing, and food costs. Chinese version of death row. Furthermore, your body is property of the proletariat, and when you die under the custody of the state, they can harvest and profit from your bodily organs? So the next time you hear a hippie talk about how heinous the bush “regime” is, remember that Bush doesn’t maintain that sort of delicious irony about the death penalty. But… I do hear that Chinese prison inmates have a good communal dancing program (look up the videos on youtube, they are hilarious)

But it’s a shame that Islam has taken on such a terrible face. The Koran in particular is a very interesting read and is strikingly similar to the Bible. It can give you some insight into Islamic understanding. Especially since middle easterners are very verbatim about it (of course that is a generalization). The original text is too complicated, but I used a very good translation by N.J. DaWood that puts the text in western format.

Also, I have heard that some people refer to Canada as Americas hat… and Mexico as Americas pants. Does that make the U.S. as Americas gut?


Ruthless Logic,

To quote Rick James, “cocaine is one hell of a drug.”

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Holiday,
But I think that Islam in particular is a sort of hyper-identity marker for middle easterners. It has become their definition.

Wasn't it their definition before when the whole idea was to establish a caliphate and follow the caliph, like Abu Bakr. So Islam was always their definition just not put to undefine the Christian religion before.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Why doesn’t the US advocate for Islamic religion? How would you feel if Islamic Mullahs were advocating Christian doctrines? (If you are Christian).

I don't follow Christianity much so I guess I wouldn't care. It would just be unorthodox. But if I was Christian then thats like Islam and Christianity getting along, right?

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

As for Chinese totalitarianism… did you know that if you are sentenced to death in china, you have to work to pay for the bullet that kills you? Apparently, it takes one week to pay for the bullet, housing, and food costs. Chinese version of death row.

Yeah, I found that out when I read up on the university students advocating democracy and being shot down for it. How much is a bulet though?! They must not make much, which is all the more reason to invade China.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

But it’s a shame that Islam has taken on such a terrible face. The Koran in particular is a very interesting read and is strikingly similar to the Bible. It can give you some insight into Islamic understanding.

I hear that it is better to read it in Arabic, and it sounds very poetic in that language. Also that the Koran is very much as moral as the Bible but doesn't the Koran degrade women.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Also, I have heard that some people refer to Canada as Americas hat… and Mexico as Americas pants. Does that make the U.S. as Americas gut?

Yeah, and Bush has shown some guts going against the public, invading a country without nuclear weapons of mass destruction, cheating the election, and giving speeches when his way with words makes him look pathetic in some cases. Didn't Bush use in one of his speeches that he heard God speak to him or something. That was probably a bad move.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

The unfortunate aspect of your response is the continued denial of personal assessment, and the subsequent uncomfortable realizations.

Lol. I'll admit I don't know anything here. But Didymos has 24 times as many posts as you do so he's had many realisations that make his posts more credible and understandable than ruthless logic, not Ruthless Logic perhaps, but ruthless logic.