Posted by Alexander from 92.52.26.24.cfl.rr.com (24.26.52.92) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 at 4:15PM :
In Reply to: Well... posted by Sadie from D006094.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu (129.59.6.94) on Sunday, September 07, 2003 at 3:17PM :
Right on Sadie, that is what I am trying to say, and regarding Fred's response about the CIA succeeding by just creating turmoil:
They created turmoil in Vietnam byt dropping bombs everywhere, not just strategic locations. To someone, it would appear to be a planned attack that is well-coordinated. In fact, it was not. It was just to bomb out the revolutionary("commies") forces to fleeing, which they did not do, and so the US ended up failing in supporting their puppet/business partner in South Vietnam.
In Iraq, they used "precision" bombs which reportedly had a failure rate(as reported by Russian sources) of 8 out of every 9 dropped. Very precise huh? But who's making money off of it? Who's stocks went up when the economy was down and all other stocks were in the gutters after "9/11"? Lockheed Martin. They were doing good business again. The US tries to make turmoil, but in the process, it itself is not able to control what happens, after it sets in motion such events, and therefore fails the majority of the times. To take another country, you have to coordinate your resources and organise networks and systems to set in place afterward, unlike what the US does.
You say Israel is winning? No, they can't. They can only hang on to a little bit of land(although it comprises much of Palestine, well over ninety percent if I'm not mistaken), but anytime they try to go to another country, they end up failing(Lebanon, Syria) They can't even take over Palestinians armed with rocks and rocket launchers. They only stay there and don't get ousted because they have armor and walls and fences and tanks, and money from the US, otherwise, things would be different. Believe me, Israel does not want this to keep going on, they want to finish their takeover once and for all, but due to lack of ability(human resources, and actual tact), they can only defend their plots of land, and make temporary incursions to other nations.
As for countries not taking land anymore, yes they do. That is a common misperception, that it was only in the old days that land was conquered, and now its a new world. No no no, it is the same, it just isnt as obvious, because we are expecting to see Julius Caesars and Alexander(the Greats)...But its always been the same process, and when nations havent been able to conquer someone else for some reason or other, they usually resorted to low intensity shelling(like constant Lebanon-Israel shelling from mobile and stationary artillery units on either side of the border, as well as occasional rocket attacks by militant/defense forces like Hezbollah, etc.). This indicates a dip in either the nations economy or overall ability to act effeciently, therefore causing it to resort to long-range low-intensity warfare, that does not require huge drains in resources and energies(be it petroleum or food or water or metals).
The US is one nation that fits into a particular class I like to refer to as the "Pirate" class. This is like the old Phoenician states, who made much off of piracy, like some old Libyan-based pirate organisations, and the US employs the same tactics, of stealing land, of using small incursions to try to disrupt and distract other nations or organisations(like Phoenician pirates boarding a coast briefly, just to take the village's resources, as well as raping the women and men), it smuggles drugs, weaponry, all characteristic of piracy, and one thing I would point out is the US involvement in the Libyan "pirate" affairs of about 200 years ago. The US was not protecting anything, it was just protecting its own interests, namely to compete against other "pirate" organisations, and to cripple/attack the Libyan state.
-- Alexander
-- signature .