Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco
I Read This
May 27, 2018, 05:25:52 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New here? Read our voting instructions and rules
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco  (Read 16916 times)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2009, 18:31:04 EST »

Then, pump up the infantry (I didn't use to believe it, but I think Irak has shown that more troops => more control), officially declare war on Palestine (yes, the country, you can't turn a movement into burning rubble), invade and declare it a colony... or better yet, turn it over to Israel for governorship.

Air Superiority (and other tech like missiles) wins wars. Infantry holds the gains.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2009, 18:37:48 EST »

I agree with the policies suggested by the piece.  The US should not support Israel as they do.

There is a solution, and it's not "get the hell out". The solution is the same to all terrorism problems, though. Less army, more police force.

My thoughts exactly. The whole "let's bomb the shit out of the local population so they rise up against $EVIL_OPPRESSOR" never worked in any of the conflicts it has been used in - the population will _always_ hate the side that's actually dropping the bombs on them.

As long as they kill 3+ civilians along with every militant, they're effectively just doing a recruiting drive for Hamas. Unless their goal is actually to reduce the number of civilians to an, err, more manageable level. There's a word for that, it must have slipped my mind.
I disagree.  It is not the business of other countries to police what goes on in the middle-east.  It is not something that is likely to work.  We westerners -as electorates- don't know enough about the situation to intervene wisely.

You misunderstand: not "let's go in and police other countries", but "let's offer all the expertise of our police forces, and resources to be spent on training their own police forces". The former nets us Iraq's current situation, the latter slows terrorism worldwide.

Admittedly, taking resources for a paramilitary organisation makes it very easy to pass those resources on to terrorists...

Besides, whether those who intervene are police or military will not matter to those involved on the ground.  When forces come from abroad people always regard them as military, whether they are or no.  Especially the people of the middle-east.  People from that area do not see any difference between the military and police anyway because there isn't really a difference in the nations they live in.

See, this just speaks to me of needing outside help. MPs are not police and they don't fill the role well.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2009, 06:33:58 EST »

You misunderstand: not "let's go in and police other countries", but "let's offer all the expertise of our police forces, and resources to be spent on training their own police forces". The former nets us Iraq's current situation, the latter slows terrorism worldwide.
Well, I'd agree, that's a reasonable thing to do.  I don't think it would help much though.  Mostly in the middle east the military are used because those in power want the military to be used, not because they don't know how to train police.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2009, 14:31:38 EST »

Air superiority wrecks infrastructure and causes morale damage, tanks and armour tech win wars to a much, much greater degree.

It's probably simplist to say that air superiority is a denial action, as it stops armour from being used effectively and wrecks the ability to make forward bases, so it doesn't win wars so much as stops one from losing them outright.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2009, 18:11:48 EST »

You misunderstand: not "let's go in and police other countries", but "let's offer all the expertise of our police forces, and resources to be spent on training their own police forces". The former nets us Iraq's current situation, the latter slows terrorism worldwide.
Well, I'd agree, that's a reasonable thing to do.  I don't think it would help much though.  Mostly in the middle east the military are used because those in power want the military to be used, not because they don't know how to train police.


Which is possibly where negotiation comes in. As I said, MPs are not police, and using them as such renders the population harder to control. Making the government of Iran and the leaders of Palestine understand why this is the case would lead to "less army, more police" being a viable plan.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2009, 03:43:42 EST »

Nonsense, pistol whipping the shit out of people makes you love them.

It's like whipping your partner with a heated up coat-hanger screaming "Don't you fucking leave me." so they know you really care.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2009, 06:49:23 EST »

You misunderstand: not "let's go in and police other countries", but "let's offer all the expertise of our police forces, and resources to be spent on training their own police forces". The former nets us Iraq's current situation, the latter slows terrorism worldwide.
Well, I'd agree, that's a reasonable thing to do.  I don't think it would help much though.  Mostly in the middle east the military are used because those in power want the military to be used, not because they don't know how to train police.


Which is possibly where negotiation comes in. As I said, MPs are not police, and using them as such renders the population harder to control. Making the government of Iran and the leaders of Palestine understand why this is the case would lead to "less army, more police" being a viable plan.
It's a sort of "we westerners know best" type of attitude.  Still I agree it is the best thing to do in this case.

That said, I think though that the problems spring from other causes than just the heavy use of the military.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2009, 13:41:06 EST »

Newsbiscuit on the success of Tony Blair as a Middle-East Peace Envoy.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2009, 00:02:12 EST »

Then, pump up the infantry (I didn't use to believe it, but I think Irak has shown that more troops => more control), officially declare war on Palestine (yes, the country, you can't turn a movement into burning rubble), invade and declare it a colony... or better yet, turn it over to Israel for governorship.

Air Superiority (and other tech like missiles) wins wars. Infantry holds the gains.
Unless you can't target the enemy easily from the air that is the case in Palestine since the battlegrounds of Palestine is like the battleground of Stalingrad during WWII where they only way you can really target enemy troops is infantry in brutal urban warfare.  While air power can easily pound civilians in urban battlefields, properly trained troops are skilled enough to survive air strikes in urban environments making air power nothing more then annoyance for armies in urban battlefields.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2009, 04:06:48 EST »

But it sure can do damage to quasi-civilians, you know, those people who are clearly in league with whomever needs ot be targetted by virtue of being of the same grouping of people.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2009, 19:56:21 EST »

Then, pump up the infantry (I didn't use to believe it, but I think Irak has shown that more troops => more control), officially declare war on Palestine (yes, the country, you can't turn a movement into burning rubble), invade and declare it a colony... or better yet, turn it over to Israel for governorship.

Air Superiority (and other tech like missiles) wins wars. Infantry holds the gains.
Unless you can't target the enemy easily from the air that is the case in Palestine since the battlegrounds of Palestine is like the battleground of Stalingrad during WWII where they only way you can really target enemy troops is infantry in brutal urban warfare.  While air power can easily pound civilians in urban battlefields, properly trained troops are skilled enough to survive air strikes in urban environments making air power nothing more then annoyance for armies in urban battlefields.

Incorrect in the fact those situation the City is "controlled" that the cases you sited, have not hope of regaining that control buy fighting (directly) they can only hope to out last and speed up the enemy's resolved to stay. And are what I meant by "Holding"

but if what you want is more than Holding, but to "win" you need police not infantry. (Note police can include SWAT). Different skill sets
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2009, 21:51:56 EST »

Then, pump up the infantry (I didn't use to believe it, but I think Irak has shown that more troops => more control), officially declare war on Palestine (yes, the country, you can't turn a movement into burning rubble), invade and declare it a colony... or better yet, turn it over to Israel for governorship.

Air Superiority (and other tech like missiles) wins wars. Infantry holds the gains.
Unless you can't target the enemy easily from the air that is the case in Palestine since the battlegrounds of Palestine is like the battleground of Stalingrad during WWII where they only way you can really target enemy troops is infantry in brutal urban warfare.  While air power can easily pound civilians in urban battlefields, properly trained troops are skilled enough to survive air strikes in urban environments making air power nothing more then annoyance for armies in urban battlefields.

Incorrect in the fact those situation the City is "controlled" that the cases you sited, have not hope of regaining that control buy fighting (directly) they can only hope to out last and speed up the enemy's resolved to stay. And are what I meant by "Holding" but if what you want is more than Holding, but to "win" you need police not infantry. (Note police can include SWAT). Different skill sets
The problem with using air power to win urban battles is that only close air support can really land direct hits reliably , yet close air support flies low enough for infantry to be able take them out and the urban environment makes it easier to ambush helicopters then even mountainous areas as the ambush can wait till the helicopter is far too close to evade.  Flying above the range of anti-air weapons makes air power far less effective against troops as air crews don't know exactly were enemy troops are in a urban environment.
Logged
Hazel
New Political Commentator
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2009, 12:54:07 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2009, 13:46:13 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Vietnam proved air superiority totally useless over terrain that hides movements of armies, the U.S.S.R's intervention in Afganistan proved close air support is extremely vulnerable over terrain that hides the enemies position armed with modern anti-air weaponry, also Russia's intention in Georgia showed that it is ground forces wins wars not air power.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2009, 01:23:45 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Vietnam proved air superiority totally useless over terrain that hides movements of armies,

Which is, of course, why US air strikes were able to totally collapse the last PAVN offencive before the final US withdrawal.

Limitations on the effectiveness of US air power were more due to political restrictions, (i.e. having target restrictions in North Vietnam, and not being able to engage in major interdictions in Cambodia and Laos), than the lack of capabilities.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!