On May 16, 6:31=A0am, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <2685c05f-c958-4e7f-b35a-4cd5d0cac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
=3D?ISO-8859-13?Q?P=3DE7teris_Cedri=3DF2=3DF0_=3D28Peteris_Cedrins=3D29?=
=3D
>
>
>
>
>
> <cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On 15 Maijs, 18:10, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7eaa172c-f699-4176-80c9-6c6540dae...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > >
=3D?ISO-8859-13?Q?P=3DE7teris_Cedri=3DF2=3DF0_=3D28Peteris_Cedrins=3D2=
9?=3D
>
> > > <cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > On 13 Maijs, 22:44, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On 11 May, 10:43, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman)
wrote:
> > > <deletions>
>
> > > > Western and especially American intervention in Latvia in 1919 was
> > > > really awful, too. I mean, British war****ps killed the people, and
t=
he
> > > > Americans brought food with all of those strings attached. Woe is
me=
..
>
> > > Back in those days the "bad guys" were easy to identitfy and
eliminate=
.. It
> > > should be clear after some seven years of conflict that intervening
in=
> > > Afghanistan is a great way to help some of the people in Kabul but
pur=
ely
> > > dysfunctional as a strategy for containing or destroying al-Qa'ida.
>
> > > Warfare with amorphous, supranational, rag-tag, leaderless
organizatio=
ns
> > > whose sup****ters have no regard for human life, not even their own,
is=
> > > quite a different prospect than war with states that have
infrastrucur=
es
> > > to maintain, populations to feed and protect, and a technologically
> > > advanced military to concretely project power.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Eugene Holman
>
> > And your last paragraph doesn't describe the Bolsheviks? Ask Black
> > Monk.
>
> It does indeed. The Bolsheviks, a network of ideologically driven
> political thugs, were not loyal to a state, but to an idea, the goal of
> which was the erosian and demise of states. Living in a world in which
> states were the dominant form of complex human organization, they had no
> choice but subvert a state and usurp its resources for their own use.
>
> From the standpoint of political theory, the Bolsheviks represented the
> wave of the future when considering the development of so-called
> fourth-generation or asymmetrical warfare. Being on cusp of the
> transition, they could only prevail by, ironically, becomong more
statist
> than the statists. Al-Qa'ida has done a far better job of prevailing and
> frustrating the efforts of traditional states than the Bolsheviks, whose
> heirs were not above teaming up with a rigid and ultraconservative
state,
> Nazi Germany, ever did.
What is particularly "ultraconservative" about Nazi Germany?
Conservatism was opposed to both nationalism and socialism, you know.
regards,
BM
>
> The Soviet Union, as a rigid and, in many respects, conservative state,
> had extreme vulnerabilities, something that Nazi Germany tried to
exploit
> with its sneak attack and intended Blitzkrieg of June 22, 1941. If the
> Nazis had concentrated their efforts on taking Moscow rather than trying
> to add insult to injury by utilizing a resource diluting three-pronged
> attack aimed at insulting the Soviets by taking their two cities at
> opposite ends of the map named after im****tant leaders, Leningrad and
> Stalingrad, they might well have prevailed. As it was, the sttack wound
up=
> evlving into a traditional symmetrical military conflict of state
against
> state and ilitary against military.
>
> This is quite different from the asymmetrical conflict between the
United
> States and its coalition with their militaries and state-of-the-art
> technology, and al-Qa'ida's virtually invisible, low-tech, improvised,
> leaderless, nihilistic, suicidal combatants. They have no state,
> infrastructure, supply lines, or military to destroy, thus the quagmire.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
