All of the points you mention above are worthwhile to discuss and indeed I spend many hours doing so with people. I disagree with some and agree with others but I do think that a case can be made for most of them. My objection is with the following:
So no, it isn't too early to say that the invasion of Iraq is among the least destructive major military invasions in the history of the world. All such actions involve considerable destruction, damage, and loss of life, but the overall totals and rates are dramatically lower than what has been record for comparable events
It is too early to judge the Iraq invasion. The country is not secure, there is no control (dejure or de facto) over large parts of it. There is no rule of law and very little objective information about the country on which to base an opinion on if the Iraqi's are better off or not. If the US is still fighting in Iraq in 5 years time then I do not see how one can claim that it is one of the least destructive military invasions in the history of the world. Some other example that you may wish dwell on are - Indonesia in Papua, the Indonesian invasion in East Timor, the Australian led invasion of Indonesia (East Timor), China in Tibet, US in the Philippines. As you can see comparing fruit is fun but not decisive.
It is too early to assess if Iraq was a success at all, let alone one of the least destructive ones
I disagree. If you look at some of the historic examples of occupation (Algeria and N Ireland to name two), they may have been a good thing for a short period of time, but a longer time frame has shown they were unmitigated disasters for the occupying forces and arguably not that good for the locals. Conversely if we look at the occupation of Germany or Japan, on a short time frame they were disasters for the local people (WW2 Japan would have been better off in 1949 if the US had not occupied it), but over the course of a few years/decades they were a success. East Timor is another example - good in the short term but I believe that the jury is still out about weather they are better off independent than under the Indonesians (until their next election and the UN has packed up and gone home). I believe that my point stands - it is too early to tell if the Iraqi people are better off as a result of the invasion. Lets examine after five years.
I too have wondered. This link http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/i ndex.html has a nice quiz and some words that are the best explanation that I have seen on what "left and "right" mean as well as where you sit on a 4 axis scale. Enjoy!
By conflict standards the collateral damage and casualty rates in Iraq have been among the lowest, perhaps the very lowest of any major invasion in history.
Wouldn't it be clever to wait until the war (occupation, military action, whatever) is over until making a judgement on this?
I do not know about the laws and stuff, but in my time in Sydney and Canberra - about 1 call a year from charity. Maybe one of the things that Aus has not completely stuffed up legally recently?
You say "Their voice is smaller, by being one in several million", but doesn't that serve to ensure that by voting, we guarantee that a decision is arrived at by 'consensus', that is a general agreement. That agreement might not be one that we all arrive at, but that a majority of us will approve of.
I understand what you are saying here but I disagree with it. Majority rule is not consensus as it does not account for the fact that the minority may have valid input to the question. Consensus is 'give and take', not winner take all. Democracy is also predicated on informed opinion. Robert A Heinlein had some entertaining rants in his later books (between the incest) on this - "democracy is thinking that 100 000 people are smarter than 1" et. al.
Maybe the case with the current stuff that is being trialed but there is a big move at the moment to both GOTS and COTS and with the bean counter Nazis overseing procurement - I'll bet that there are enough OTS cevices in a modern fighting force to be fried.
I disagree. Are you aware of the amount of C3I and RS&I assets that are available and integral to a modern Army at Div level and below? A few EMP shells and you will be facing a blind and headless adversary. Useful in a tactical battle.
If you wanted to use an EMP strategically, as other posters have stated, you need a large area effect to be useful. Nuke 'em.
A good example of someone being quoted out of context. At the time he said this he was asking congress for more money and actually stated "Some people think that everything that can be invented has been invented. This is not the case." He thne wne in length to explain why he needed more money.
LINUX can be argued to be _MORE_ secure than any M$ product simply because you can know what is there. While obscure, the security comes though being able to test and understand the entire OS vs a guess at what the latest cluster from M$ has in its millions of lines.
I think that this is a good thing. I feel more comfortable knowing that the military is using programs they can follow line by line rather than Redmonds "trust me it works in all conditions approach"
Dan
Slashdot Mirror
All of the points you mention above are worthwhile to discuss and indeed I spend many hours doing so with people. I disagree with some and agree with others but I do think that a case can be made for most of them. My objection is with the following:
So no, it isn't too early to say that the invasion of Iraq is among the least destructive major military invasions in the history of the world. All such actions involve considerable destruction, damage, and loss of life, but the overall totals and rates are dramatically lower than what has been record for comparable events
It is too early to judge the Iraq invasion. The country is not secure, there is no control (dejure or de facto) over large parts of it. There is no rule of law and very little objective information about the country on which to base an opinion on if the Iraqi's are better off or not. If the US is still fighting in Iraq in 5 years time then I do not see how one can claim that it is one of the least destructive military invasions in the history of the world. Some other example that you may wish dwell on are - Indonesia in Papua, the Indonesian invasion in East Timor, the Australian led invasion of Indonesia (East Timor), China in Tibet, US in the Philippines. As you can see comparing fruit is fun but not decisive.
It is too early to assess if Iraq was a success at all, let alone one of the least destructive ones
I disagree. If you look at some of the historic examples of occupation (Algeria and N Ireland to name two), they may have been a good thing for a short period of time, but a longer time frame has shown they were unmitigated disasters for the occupying forces and arguably not that good for the locals. Conversely if we look at the occupation of Germany or Japan, on a short time frame they were disasters for the local people (WW2 Japan would have been better off in 1949 if the US had not occupied it), but over the course of a few years/decades they were a success. East Timor is another example - good in the short term but I believe that the jury is still out about weather they are better off independent than under the Indonesians (until their next election and the UN has packed up and gone home).
I believe that my point stands - it is too early to tell if the Iraqi people are better off as a result of the invasion. Lets examine after five years.
I too have wondered. This link http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/i ndex.html has a nice quiz and some words that are the best explanation that I have seen on what "left and "right" mean as well as where you sit on a 4 axis scale. Enjoy!
By conflict standards the collateral damage and casualty rates in Iraq have been among the lowest, perhaps the very lowest of any major invasion in history.
Wouldn't it be clever to wait until the war (occupation, military action, whatever) is over until making a judgement on this?
I do not know about the laws and stuff, but in my time in Sydney and Canberra - about 1 call a year from charity. Maybe one of the things that Aus has not completely stuffed up legally recently?
Dan
You say "Their voice is smaller, by being one in several million", but doesn't that serve to ensure that by voting, we guarantee that a decision is arrived at by 'consensus', that is a general agreement. That agreement might not be one that we all arrive at, but that a majority of us will approve of.
I understand what you are saying here but I disagree with it. Majority rule is not consensus as it does not account for the fact that the minority may have valid input to the question. Consensus is 'give and take', not winner take all. Democracy is also predicated on informed opinion. Robert A Heinlein had some entertaining rants in his later books (between the incest) on this - "democracy is thinking that 100 000 people are smarter than 1" et. al.
Dan
Did the dickhead that posted originally, supposedly from eEye, get back to you or was it a 15 y.o with more time than brains?
Maybe the case with the current stuff that is being trialed but there is a big move at the moment to both GOTS and COTS and with the bean counter Nazis overseing procurement - I'll bet that there are enough OTS cevices in a modern fighting force to be fried.
I disagree. Are you aware of the amount of C3I and RS&I assets that are available and integral to a modern Army at Div level and below? A few EMP shells and you will be facing a blind and headless adversary. Useful in a tactical battle.
If you wanted to use an EMP strategically, as other posters have stated, you need a large area effect to be useful. Nuke 'em.
Does that mean that the rest of the book is ogs bollocks as well?
No. "Quotes". Grammar Nazi's must die
A good example of someone being quoted out of context. At the time he said this he was asking congress for more money and actually stated "Some people think that everything that can be invented has been invented. This is not the case." He thne wne in length to explain why he needed more money.
LINUX can be argued to be _MORE_ secure than any M$ product simply because you can know what is there. While obscure, the security comes though being able to test and understand the entire OS vs a guess at what the latest cluster from M$ has in its millions of lines. I think that this is a good thing. I feel more comfortable knowing that the military is using programs they can follow line by line rather than Redmonds "trust me it works in all conditions approach" Dan