[Stryke 9]

Technically, not true. The US has created absolute supremacy (for now) in traditional warfare, which means a good degree of supremacy in national politics.

What we're seeing now is the emergence of a non-traditional form of warfare, used by weaker parties since they can't hope for a fair fight on the battlefield. In other words, a near-total reliance on surprise-attacking civilian targets, i.e. terrorism, a field in which small, underfunded groups of more or less competent people can utterly smash a huge, wealthy, but unwieldy government organization. It's been implemented broadly, with (arguably) great success in Israel by the Palestinian refugees, and the concept of such strikes as a legitimate option to traditional war is reportedly spreading like all get-out.


War ain't for the Army any more, and battlegrounds aren't restricted to the more poorly defended country. Get used to it, we'll be seeing a LOT more of it in the years to come.

[CP5670]

You see though, that works only for quick-strike operations with temporary effect; classical terrorism can take down some specific targets of opportunity (it excels at that, in fact) but it simply does not have the long-term force required to take over an entire nation and hold it under your command. To do that you still need your conventional army and of course, a good propaganda machine. A good example is the Israel/Palestine conflict you mentioned; the Palestinian suicide squads can cause some quick disturbances but they are not going to be able to topple the government with that or, even if they somehow manage to defeat the opponent's military, hold Israel together under their control, and are thus little more than a nuisance in the big picture. But what I was talking about there are things like this question:

Did the US government condemn the use of gas in the Iraq-Iran war?
(no)

This is actually something that speaks in favor of American geopolitical acumen. Why condemn it if it isn't hindering your objectives?

[Stryke 9]

But an extended series of terrorist strikes can do just that. It doesn't matter if it takes a week or a year to turn a city to rubble; in the end, it's still ash, and all the better if the enemy is thrown into a constant state of paranoia and disorder by the fact that they can never tell where or when the next hit's coming.

Naturally, it's useless for occupations and you've got another problem when it comes time to replace the government, but the "after" period of the conflict is of secondary interest to the parties using such tactics right now. At the moment, they've got a strategy that is damn near impossible to foil reliably (say 70% of the time), and cheap enough that you can always get enough through even the tightest security- it's a tactic that could eliminate their immediate problems, and as for the future... well, it's enough that they've got a slight chance to win a war against infinitely superior forces, I think worrying about the flaws in it (when a rebuilding and replacement government is even a concern, which it isn't really when we're talking about groups like Hamas and al Qaeda- they just want the US and Israel out of their hair) would be highly counterproductive.

[kode]

Originally posted by CP5670


No, it will stir up pro-American feelings there, and the EU knows this well; it is one of the major things that they want to prevent and why they have been opposing this war so virulently. If they really believed that this war would create anti-American sentiment (within Iraq, that is, not outside it) more than the opposite, do you think that they would be making such a fuss over that? heck no, they would say sure, go right ahead.

please tell me how you can predict the future of the world. I'm dying to know.

iraq changed over to euro in means of trading oil. would be a major blow for the us if more countries followed. for europe however, that'd be a good thing. that is the frigging reason why europe is "making such a fuss".

[kode]

Originally posted by CP5670
Indeed, it makes me even a greater supporter of the US than I already am. If all that is true, the US is on the path to total victory and will eventually rule the world, and I want to be on the winning side. What about the rest of you?
 

Harakiri. At least I wouldn't have to live in a world with brainwashed zealots then...

[Stryke 9]

Brainwashed zealotry is stock in trade for ANY government with aspirations to absolute power. The trick is to keep 'em in enough chaos that at least you still have a big choice in who's gonna try and brainwash you, in the hopes that they all just might cancel each other out.

[Tiara]

Meh, just do as we do; build coffeeshops on every street corner Keeps everyone happy!

[Stryke 9]

Doesn't work in combination with a culture with frontier origins. A buncha hillbilly descendants with small arsenals on their belts getting jumpy and hyped-up on caffeine sounds like a bad idea to me.

[Stryke 9]

Cool. One big thread. And what's more, up in the announcements area where I never look. I like.

[kode]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Doesn't work in combination with a culture with frontier origins. A buncha hillbilly descendants with small arsenals on their belts getting jumpy and hyped-up on caffeine sounds like a bad idea to me.

umm... coffeshops sells marijuana...

[Shrike]

Yes.  Wonderful, no?

I should have named it the Mother Of All Iraq theads, but that might be a bit long.  

[Shrike]

Originally posted by kode
umm... coffeshops sells marijuana...

Not on the continent they don't.

[kode]

Originally posted by Shrike
Not on the continent they don't.

in the netherlands they do.

and if this would be the mother of all iraq threads, why did you have to kill her children

[Shrike]

Originally posted by kode
and if this would be the mother of all iraq threads, why did you have to kill her children

Because I like having a nice cold baby while I'm writing.

[kode]

Originally posted by Shrike
Because I like having a nice cold baby while I'm writing.

that I can understand. They are greatly in demand, I've heard. when will the "iraqi soldiers kills babies" rumor surface again, btw?

[Shrike]

Start one then.

Can never have too many rumors.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Shrike
Not on the continent they don't.

They do here If the stuff were legal everywhere we'd have a monopoly on the stuff

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Tiara
They do here If the stuff were legal everywhere we'd have a monopoly on the stuff

*snicker*  You've never had BC bud then.  :devil:

[Tiara]

Meh, the mass bombings are so going to cause trouble and stir up anti-american movements.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara
Meh, the mass bombings are so going to cause trouble and stir up anti-american movements.

Big difference between "mass bombings" and massive amounts of pression bombings

You gotta keep in mind we're using weapons that are accurate to within feet of the target.