I'm confused on your logic here. In Iraq we have a military force 90% focused on success.
In a civil revolution you'll be lucky to have the military with 60-70% focus on success, and a portion of that military will actually work on the side of the civilian revolutionaries.
If the military went into Iraq with a 100% focus on leaving a free Iraq it would have been a cake walk. A bloody, messy, mostly destroyed free Iraq would emerge, but a cake walk it would have been. You either lose a war or you really lose a war. Because we've had so many people apposed to it we are ending up in the "really lose" category.
Most of those police and military are also family people. Almost none of them wish to throw away their lives. The threat that every house they go to they might get shot will really make them question if they are doing the right thing.
"The notion that a civilian force could "overthrow a tyrannical government" in the US today is quaint at best."
Sounds like the type of idea that came from the people who said Iraq would be a cake walk.
"Intent to kill people in order to change a way of life."
Now finding that intent may or may not include any number of the things you mentioned.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Actually i was more referring to the typo of word 'skyscraper' as 'skycraper' and extrapolating that to be 'skycrapper' as a new slang term for a 'crapper in the sky' or the bathroom on an airplane.
Like most things in modern society, it is due to far more prevalent information. Abuse is lower, but incidents are reported more. Crime is down, but every criminal is on the 5pm news. People are living longer although everything you do will kill you.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"A modern airliner costs about the same as a skycraper."
Wow, that's a deal. Most airliners have 2 or more skycrappers in them.
The hammer analogy has always bugged me. It seems more appropriate to compare it to the diffrent screwdriver types. Flat, Philips, Torx, Square, etc...
You can argue the pros and cons of each type all day but in the end the customer just wants the two things to be held together.
Liberals = large domestic social programs, friendly international policy no mater what. Conservatives = few and limited social programs, hardball international policy. Neocons = large domestic social programs, hardball international policy. Libertarians = few and limited social programs, friendly international policy when possible.
It is not unique to Slashdot. In fact the opposite argument "Don't have to have any knowledge to understand issues." is fairly unique to the management class of people including political leaders. The fact that it is true enough to keep things minimally functional seems to drive it.
you don't like your elected representatives? Reckon your fellow citizens share your views? Have piles of cash? Able to con(vince) people that don't support your views into your way of thinking? Willing to compromise your integrity by voting for things you don't like so others will vote for your things that you do like? Ready to take the heat for things you have absolutely no control over? Why not stand for election yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
"If it were, we'd have already seen a version of WINDOWS that ran all Windows apps without any fancy configuration."
fixed it.
They are wind powered. Didn't you see the propeller hat?
I'm confused on your logic here. In Iraq we have a military force 90% focused on success.
In a civil revolution you'll be lucky to have the military with 60-70% focus on success, and a portion of that military will actually work on the side of the civilian revolutionaries.
If the military went into Iraq with a 100% focus on leaving a free Iraq it would have been a cake walk. A bloody, messy, mostly destroyed free Iraq would emerge, but a cake walk it would have been. You either lose a war or you really lose a war. Because we've had so many people apposed to it we are ending up in the "really lose" category.
Most of those police and military are also family people. Almost none of them wish to throw away their lives. The threat that every house they go to they might get shot will really make them question if they are doing the right thing.
"The notion that a civilian force could "overthrow a tyrannical government" in the US today is quaint at best."
Sounds like the type of idea that came from the people who said Iraq would be a cake walk.
"Intent to kill people in order to change a way of life."
Now finding that intent may or may not include any number of the things you mentioned.
Actually i was more referring to the typo of word 'skyscraper' as 'skycraper' and extrapolating that to be 'skycrapper' as a new slang term for a 'crapper in the sky' or the bathroom on an airplane.
Like most things in modern society, it is due to far more prevalent information. Abuse is lower, but incidents are reported more. Crime is down, but every criminal is on the 5pm news. People are living longer although everything you do will kill you.
"A modern airliner costs about the same as a skycraper."
Wow, that's a deal. Most airliners have 2 or more skycrappers in them.
...install solar cells on your roof, fine - and more power to you...
Comedy's finest.
bi-sexuals?
I prefer:
"He who dies pennyless has impeccable timing."
Ohh yea, it's math. By that logic I can make my car get better gas milage by just putting less gas in it.
I paid a lot for this car radio, but they threw in a car with it.
It uses the super secret windows APIs that make things download faster over the internet.
The hammer analogy has always bugged me. It seems more appropriate to compare it to the diffrent screwdriver types. Flat, Philips, Torx, Square, etc...
You can argue the pros and cons of each type all day but in the end the customer just wants the two things to be held together.
And why would there be a whaler on the moon? There aren't any whales that I'm aware of. What would they do? sing?
No, you are hearing him wrong. Obama is hopeing for change. Like the guy in dirty clothes on the street.
Unfortunately Obama's going to have the IRS to back him up when he asks you for change.
Liberals = large domestic social programs, friendly international policy no mater what.
Conservatives = few and limited social programs, hardball international policy.
Neocons = large domestic social programs, hardball international policy.
Libertarians = few and limited social programs, friendly international policy when possible.
It is not unique to Slashdot. In fact the opposite argument "Don't have to have any knowledge to understand issues." is fairly unique to the management class of people including political leaders. The fact that it is true enough to keep things minimally functional seems to drive it.
So are Religions. They both have the same basis, "do the 'right'(tm) thing or some invisible force is going to come and punish you."
Umm, Grandma, why do you want to use apt again?
Exactly, "no competition."
a really smart guy once said "Everything is politics."
you don't like your elected representatives? Reckon your fellow citizens share your views? Have piles of cash? Able to con(vince) people that don't support your views into your way of thinking? Willing to compromise your integrity by voting for things you don't like so others will vote for your things that you do like? Ready to take the heat for things you have absolutely no control over? Why not stand for election yourself?
1. Propaganda. Check.
2. Corporatism. Check. (Lobbyism!)
3. Strong leader. Check.
4. Suppression of dissent. Check.
1-3 seem pretty normal for any form of government including pure democracy.
#4 seems to be off the table just by the fact that I'm able to read your post.