Understanding the Enemy

[MikeF]

Never heard of him, and exactly how many people think he's a hero. What is more, how many of those people can actually exert operational and strategic influence.

Sorry, I can't take this stuff seriously. It's an argument without evidence, and like a lot of stuff that sounds good, leads you no where, unless you enjoy rubbing your chin, about all "wicked problems" and "complexity" some cling to in order to promote agendas.

I'm sorry you feel that way Wilf. I don't have any answers that is why I ask the questions. The only agenda is that maybe people will talk about it. That's it. Personally, I think you and others here come the closest in defining anything towards pragmatic, realistic answers.

My counter-argument would be that if we don't talk about it, it will lead us to nowhere. Furthermore, no "solution" currently being implement is supported by evidence.



v/r

Mike

[jmm99]

I read a lot in certain areas that are of special interest to me. Move a bit outside of those areas and I'm a total dummy - which means I listen up a lot to what others say.

[William F. Owen]

I'm sorry you feel that way Wilf. I don't have any answers that is why I ask the questions. The only agenda is that maybe people will talk about it. That's it. Personally, I think you and others here come the closest in defining anything towards pragmatic, realistic answers.

...and I am sorry not to be more constructive. It was not your agenda I was referring to. Your question is one worth asking, but I strongly caution against assuming all the questions and observations posed by such articles are worthwhile.

If there is merit in understanding an enemy, it is in how to break his will and subvert his arguments, not understanding him, so as you can empathise with the SOB, and live happily ever after.

Until the enemy gives up the policies you find unacceptable, his physical defeat has got to be the primary purpose.

That is as close to being pragmatic and realistic as I might ever get.

[jmm99]

from Wilf
Until the enemy gives up the policies you find unacceptable, his physical defeat has got to be the primary purpose.

the appropriate tactic was physically to defeat Gandhi ?

Not a very strenuous task, based on his photographs.

[William F. Owen]

the appropriate tactic was physically to defeat Gandhi ?

Not a very strenuous task, based on his photographs.

Good one...but that was Politics, that never became war. Gandhi was a lawyer. The British had already crushed the violent means, and what many don't know is Gandhi implicitly threatened violence. He always told the British they did not have enough troops to suppress an Indian wide violent rebellion.

[MikeF]

If there is merit in understanding an enemy, it is in how to break his will and subvert his arguments, not understanding him, so as you can empathise with the SOB, and live happily ever after.

Until the enemy gives up the policies you find unacceptable, his physical defeat has got to be the primary purpose.

As usual, I agree with you, but we do not seem to want to use our nuclear weapons as a true deterrance so I'm just looking for other alternatives.

JMM may be onto something with the Gandhi stuff.

And no, I have not joined the "Go Nuke or go home crowd."

v/r

Mike