Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21663)	10/2/2004 11:33:30 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

Hi Bruce, Believe it or not, I haven't forgotton your thoughtful post and I haven't abandoned my intention to answer it. The problem is that I've been really busy and although I've taken the time to answer some posts that are quick, I'm saving yours. I may take the time tomorrow. And yes, you and those who think like you do, may well drag me into a killing war with those who have not yet had the time to learn that their doctrines will not lead to the nirvana they seek. Cause after all, if you start the war of ideologies, the rest of us have to make a "best of bad choices" decision. Ed

To: Bruce L who wrote (21663)	10/4/2004 4:49:38 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

Bruce, regarding lessons of history, you state: "When Caesar had to capture a hostile town the "hard way", it invariably followed that subsequent towns were "easier". An accepted principle that all Peoples have followed for ALL of recorded history.......The first time American troops took a town, like Fallujah, it would be hard; there would be (a euphemism, we know) "collateral damage." Every subsequent town in the "triangle" would be easier. Overall, loss of innocent life would be minimized. Your statement encourages me to wonder why the residents of the towns Ceasar captured didn't simply kill the Romans in great numbers from afar? Why did they not use parcel-sized explosives rigged to detonate from afar which had the power to kill dozens of Roman soldiers and wound others horribly? Why did they have to hurl themselves at well-armed Romans in hand to hand combat that yeilded them little? Why? Oh yeah, I forgot, in those days the art of killing in great numbers from ambush was not yet possible. Only in the last century did the means of such destruction become accessable to the average insurgent. So today how, and why, do we "take Fallujah? Is it a manufacturing base for the rebels? Is our "taking" designed to prevent the rebels from hiding among the population? Will they somehow give up their resistance when we perch our troops in their sights on the street corners there? Will "taking it" mean that our soldiers are then safer or less secure? I think we need to look at the realities. If you "take" jungle or cities and the enemy is still able to live there, you have "taken" nothing but the pain of placing your soldiers in harm's way. In modern day, one man with one package can kill a huge number of people, sometimes at little risk to himself. This is not the day of Rome when several Roman soldiers had safety in numbers and skill. In today's world if the enemy is resolved to kill you, has access to munitions and arms and is willing to die, you cannot "take" any town and find safety. The "taking" simply means that the enemy has chosen to fight from the shadows instead of the light. That lesson is from recent history, not Roman history. If you really want to "take" a town today you have two choices; one is to win the support of the population so that they will point out the rebels for your superior forces to kill or arrest. The other is to "kill" the population of the town, or at least their alpha males. We've screwed up the first option and the second is not yet palatable to the majority of Americans. Maybe four more years might change a few minds. If I'm wrong and you have some practical and logical arguments on how to effectively "take" a town and stop insurgency, let me know and I'll pass it on to the appropriate men in government. Ed