through a distant mirror darkly
To digress briefly, I'm just finishing Carl Sagan's, The Demon Haunted World, and the following impressed upon this reader no small reflection:
Quote:
Friedrich von Spee (pronounced "Shpay") was a Jesuit priest who had the misfortune to hear the confessions of those accused of witchcraft in the German city of Wurzburg (see Chapter 7). In 1631, he published Cautio Criminalis (Precautions for Prosecutors), which exposed the essence of this Church/State terrorism against the innocent. Before he was punished he died of the plague - as a parish priest serving the afflicted. Here is an excerpt from his whistle-blowing book:
***
9. If a madman's ravings or some malicious and idle rumor (for no proof of the scandal is ever needed) points to some helpless old woman, she is the first to suffer.
10. Yet to avoid the appearance that she is indicted solely on the basis of rumor, without other proofs, a certain presumption of guilt is obtained by posing the following dilemma: Either she has led an evil and improper life, or she has led a good and proper one. If an evil one, then she should be guilty. On the other hand, if she has led a good life, this is just as damning; for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous.
11. Therefore the old woman is put in prison. A new proof is found through a second dilemma: she is afraid or not afraid. If she is (hearing of the horrible tortures used against witches), this is sure proof; for her conscience accuses her. If she does not show fear (trusting in her innocence), this too is a proof; for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. (excerpts, pp.402-403)
Friedrich Spee - Wikipedia
Friedrich Spee - Catholic Encyclopedia
And also this footnote:
Quote:
Making the President nervous, said a member of Congress, "is the new crime." Jefferson believed the Alien Act had been framed particularly to expel C. F. Volney,*
*A typical passage from Volney's 1791 book Ruins:
You dispute, you quarrel, you fight for that which is uncertain, that of which you doubt. O men! Is this not folly? . . . We must trace a line of distinction between those that are capable of verification, and those that are not, and separate by an inviolable barrier the world of fantastical beings from the world of realities; that is to say, all civil effect must be taken away from theological and religious opinions. (p.400)
Comte de Volney - Wikipedia
Such is the world of men in this measure.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Link to opening seen of one of greatest Unconventional War movies of all time(Chinese call it Unrestricted Warfare). The movie is about Chinese brainwashing techniques used to support a political assassination that stages an internal takeover of America by the Secret Rich Elite of America who have always supported the basic idea of Communism (rule by a rich,privileged central planning committee). The original movie is showing on some cable channel this month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBDhoUZgsDo&NR=1
China's time may be limited...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Backwards Observer
As far as China's Emergence as a Superpower: The Sequel, my guess is that barring world-crippling, high-stakes kineticism, the US will probably be back to playing at an advantage within a generation or so. Uncritically buying self-generated PR seems to hobble the so-called OODA loop, and China appears to be exhibiting signs of this; a common human failing perhaps. The oft and correctly cited US advantages of intellectual open society and melting-pot dynamics are probably more advanced than anywhere else is going to be for a long while.
The downside might be that Americans seem to derive more pleasure from kicking each other in the balls than anything else. Maybe it's a "fun" thing, I dunno.
I agree that China's time appears to be limited. See Paul Krugman's op ed on the NYT website... there are serious structural economic problems in China that aren't being addressed.
Backwards Observer, I think your last point is important - America has been able to deal with significant changes in the environment precisely because we are able to figure out we were wrong, kick ourselves, and still manage to somehow change policy and move in a positive direction.
Would China's (or most other country's!) leaders be able to mess something up as badly as the US did Iraq, admit they were wrong, and implement unpopular policies to change things for the better?
The real problem is the effect a Chinese downturn would have on the world economy. The US, EU, Japan etc are not recovered to the point where we could deal with such a bump in the road...
V/R,
Cliff
China’s military: threat or twist?
Paul Rogers writes, with a variety of links, to technical comments on the J-20 fighter and the strategic and ends with:
Quote:
...by allowing the release of information about the J-20 they may also achieve the aim of diverting some of America's best scientific and technological talent into big new defence projects - while China maintains the priority of building its civil economy. Such a policy would be even more complicated for the United States: for if a jungle full of elusive snakes was difficult to "keep track of", a devious new dragon that remains one step ahead even as you think you have its measure - that is much more tricky.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...hreat-or-twist
China's J-20: future rival for air dominance?
Don't pay a whole lot of asttention to that Blog.
It's operated by a bunch of wannabe's whose greatest claim to fame is that they can rouse rabble...
That's merely one guys interpretation of the NMS / CJCS comments and his writings are not the position of the US Government -- for that matter, neither are the comments of the Chairman of the JCS necessarily indicative of that position.
Our so-called news media babbles a lot and rarely do they actually reflect a true position of the government.
1 Attachment(s)
Chinese Military-Industrial Complex
Perhaps one of the reasons for its strength is the role of PLA-owned companies.
Dirty? Eye of the beholder, I guess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Maybe you can provide something substantial on the article to make up for the dirty ad hominem attack?
Ad Hom it certainly was -- but not dirty IMO. I can get dirty but rarely do -- here. :wry:
As for something substantial, I thought I did provide that -- I simply said the Blogger's opinions were not the position of the US Government. If you know otherwise, let us know.
Quote:
Wired's Danger Room is the most visited MilBlog, with articles by journalists and former military personnel. We could ignore it - but by that standard one ought to ignore almost all sources, ending up with a completely unsatisfactory choice of information sources.
You got me on that one -- ignore's a bad choice of words...
Or would have been if I had used it. I did not; I wrote "Don't pay a whole lot of attention to that Blog." Not the same thing. In essence I said do not take anything written there as definitive. That also applies to anything written here -- and by me. And you... :D
I also read the Blog; not overly impressed with it but I read it in order to know what the cognoscenti are thinking. We all need a chuckle now and then and they do get a good scoop on occasion. That does not mean they or any blog, media outlet or source are always totally believable or accurate. As for 'Danger Room,' on an accuracy scale, I'd give it 6 or 7 out of 10, it's better than most (you get an 8 or 9...) -- none are perfect (no 10s). Nor am I (Registering at 8.052941).
All of us should read multiple, preferably competing and /or disagreeing sources and then make up our own minds. I'm sure you do that.
So do others.
Quote:
What's worse; it's a very questionable approach to consider only the government itself as a source for info about the government's intent.
Imagine this: Governments lie, and it's the press' job to expose lies and misleading statements - or to comment on vague statements.
All true and I didn't say otherwise. I did say that the CJCS also did not speak for the US Government. ;)
Note that I did not say, as you imply, that whatever the US Government said was to be taken as the entire truth and that I have on numerous occasions on this Board said that it often dissembled and obfuscated, sometimes for good reason, sometimes stupidly -- and often because that Government is quite large and frequently one Agency doesn't know what another is doing... :rolleyes:
How far will China's navy reach?
I know there is a threat on China as a super power, but this article is about the naval aspects:
Quote:
China's growing naval prowess is not so much an exercise in belligerence but an effort to shake off the shackles that have long confined its strategic reach. Nevertheless, there is reason for concern: Any China-related military conflict is most likely to be triggered and fought at sea.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensec...nas-navy-reach
Other threads, the long running China's Emergence as a Superpower:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=4366 and China's Emergence as Military Power Splits Strategists: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=493
Lost in translation: China’s opaque defence white paper
projection is in the eye of the beholder
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cliff
and how they continue the charade of being a purely defensive force when they have that capability.
What's fascinating is that for all the talk of PLA 'mystique' and lack of transparency, folks regularly seem able to divine the hostile intentions of the Chinese as clearly as the autumn moon on a cloudless night. Did someone re-activate Grill Flame?
Grill Flame
Stargate Project - Wikipedia