Re: War on humanity

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 06/02/04 

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:25:18 -0700

Rich Grise wrote:

> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:tl5vc.39490$mm1.22225@fed1read06...
>
>>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On a sunny day (27 May 2004 19:21:52 -0700) it happened
>
> suntzuman@yahoo.com
>
>>>wrote in <5cc38f6a.0405271821.6b66b9ca@posting.google.com>:
>>
>>>>Good idea. If you want to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War, go to
>
> www.sonshi.com
>
>> More people who talk about warfare should do that. Too
>>many of them, like you Jan, think the U.S. has put itself on
>>"killing ground".
>
>
> Well, US troops are doing a lot of killing on Iraqi ground. Is that what
> that means?

   No. "Killing ground" is where you've gotten yourself into
a position where you're vulnerable, have no direct line to
attack the enemy, no room to maneuver or retreat, no supply
lines, etc.

   Sun Tzu used the phrase not only to mean a direct
battlefield situation, but larger political and
philosophical arenas as well. Lots of people think it
applies in those senses to the U.S. but it doesn't.

>>>I dunno, I thought about it actually for about 62 seconds (+ or - 1%),
>
> and
>
>>>it seemed to me, now that most of the world is stocking up on nukes
>>>(except perhaps Ghadaffy who lost nerve and sold out), the balance
>
> shifts.
>
>> That's "fighting the last war" thinking. All the world's
>>leaders spend a lot more time thinking these things through
>>than you did.
>
>
> I thought "War Games" with Matthew Broderick was cool - it looks at Global
> Thermonuclear War as a game. (Spoiler[0])

   With a rather pointed lesson hidden in the game.

>>>See, it maybe be true the US has 1000 nukes
>>
>> Yup, but it doesn't matter.
>>
>>>Their anti-rocket system will likely fail half the time, ...
>>
>> Still doesn't matter.
>> (And please, stop parroting that stupid "US keeps making
>>enemies in international politics" line. Everybody does
>>that. The U.S. is being "mobbed" the same way a bunch of
>>prey birds will mob an owl because we're being painted as a
>>predator.)
>
>
> Well, how do you explain the US's behavior other than predatory? Or
> possibly Imperialistic?

   If the U.S. truly wanted to rule the world, there
wouldn't _be_ any other governments or armies, now would
there? A real predatory Empire simply doesn't permit subject
states to possess any means of defending itself against the
Empire. Anybody that resists at all is simply stomped into
submission. That has not happened, you'll notice.

   One thing about "mobbing" is that the mob will gather for
coordinated attack against the mutual threat, then when the
threat is gone, return to squabbling among themselves. It's
a purely temporary phenomenon.

   Now consider what would happen if the U.S. were displaced
from "sole superpower" status as so many claim to want.

> There's gotta be a word for somebody who
> decides to commit war on somebody based on the despot's personal
> bone to pick.

   And a few ignored U.N. resolutions...

> Mass Murderer? Remember, for freedom, it behooves
> those who would be free to throw off the chains of the oppressor.

   Assuming they have the means, which the average Iraqi
didn't, or didn't dare use because their relatives were
subject to kidnapping and other dire consequences.

> And people who are being invaded are obligated to defend their
> homes.

   Right, like the French were obligated to defend
themselves when the U.S. et. al. "invaded" Normandy.

> The victims of the US's bullying, having no military power to stand
> up to the behemoth, fight back with the only tools available. How
> many countries has the US invaded and murdered 3000 or more innocent
> civilians? That's men, women, and children.

   Sigh. You say "murder", others say "collateral damage".
Also, you didn't mention that those innocents were put in
harm's way deliberately by those we went in to remove from
power.

   Yet it wouldn't happen at all if the locals could have
overthrown their warlords on their own.

> It's really scary that the bully has risen to power. Another problem
> the victims have with the bully is that if the victim does fight
> back, the bully usually has the authorities in his back pocket and
> the victim gets in trouble for popping the bully in the snoot.

   Now you're equating Al Qaeda with Yankees fighting Redcoats?

> So, maybe the freedom fighters should come up with somethign a little
> subtler, since the bully can come back at you with $3,000,000,000,000.00
> worth of guns and bombs and stuff. And the bully seems to have the
> principal in his back pocket. And, unfortunately, most of the voters.
>
>
>>>As for size of population and chances of survival, it seems a first
>
> strike
>
>>>make even be possible from the 'other side'.
>>>Or just a mistake..
>>
>> That's what matters, because of the MAD doctrine. Nukes
>>are easier to retarget than you might think from watching
>>movies (AKA disinformation). Leaders want to survive, and
>>even assuming they're willing to do so at "stone age" levels
>>they need lots of peons to support them who won't survive a
>>large-scale nuclear exchange (for long). They know that no
>>matter who's in the White House, whoever throws first will
>>be hit hard.
>
>
> Not if the target doesn't find out who threw it. I'm kinda hoping
> for a suitcase bomb in washington DC some day when they're all
> there. I suppose the remaining chain of command would ever blow
> up whoever's highest on the current *** list, or if we^H^Hthey
> got enough top brass, the chain of command might be surgically
> pruned down to some level where some sanity might exist, and
> they'd go, "Well, let's not blow up the whole fucking world
> without a formal declaration of war from congress."

   Don't be silly.

> And BTW, while the congress is at home and just the top brass
> are there is when it should be done.

   Can't happen; the "Buddy Holly" rule(s).

> And I do NOT advocate violent overthrow of anything, I'm merely
> stating that if certain forms of violence happen in the struggle
> to reinstate The Constitution Of The United States, well, so be it.
>
>
>> Remember Nikita Krushchev? For all his table-banging, he
>>knew damn well that the U.S.S.R. simply wouldn't survive a
>>total exchange (or even a few "surgical strikes"), and he
>>wasn't willing to risk the final death of Communism on a fit
>>of pique. Current "other side" leaders are no dumber.
>
>
> Problem is, "this side" leaders appear quite dumber, i.e. capable
> of such insanity.

   Not a chance. The military, like any other arm of
government, will refuse stupid orders.

>>http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/On_War/ONWARTOC.html
>>
>>(which I just found online)
>>
>> He goes into some fairly exhaustive detail in an apparent
>>attempt to go Sun Tzu one better, but does get one thing
>>very right; you win by either defeating an enemy by
>>overwhelming him (the hard way), or convincing him it isn't
>>worth the effort to fight in the first place (the easy way).
>
>
> I don't know if this was Sun Tzu, but I'd heard that some "Way,"
> possibly Tao, had a philosophy like, "Avoid conflict if at all
> possible, but if you have no choice, then win, quickly and
> decisively." It doesn't say anything about methods - I think
> the two above things are both "right," but I'd consider "win by
> overwhelming" different from "win by fighting dirty," which is
> the only option when the guy's bigger, faster, tougher, better
> armed, ... Or Win by Guile, which might be like II above, but
> still a little bit different.

   Same general idea. But what do you do when the other guy
won't stop attacking?

   Mark L. FErgerson