12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Joy Division: Just a note, I don't really care that Aveline refers to it as a betrayal but I do care if Hakwe does. I don't want the bloody opinion of my PC to be decided to by the developers.

 I am not against self defense, nor even a bit of strikeback if someone has stepped out of line.  That is the proper role of a military IMO.

So in your idea it is good to strike back at an enemy nation to force them to peace just simply not conquer them?

Nations that have waged war in the past against you will never be pacified, no matter how many times you destroy their armies they will always come back if they have an interest and the means to do so.

The only way to ensure peace is to conquer them, and to quote Flavius Aetius from the mini-series Attila "There are many ways to conquer." Economically and Politically are also viable options. You live in the nation that controls a large portion of the world through a hegenomy. I live in a small nation who has no power of it's own in international matters, who is a **** for the larger and stronger nations.

It is VERY easy for you to condem those that conquered "more then they should have" but try living in a nation whose very existence has been threatened by other powers many times in history because we never bothered to conquer anyone ( and the few leaders who tried in our history were betrayed in their own country ).

 But both styles have their pros and cons.  And are dependant on pre-conditions and the time we are talking about. 

I feel if we were to act like a duo, you would very much be the bad cop, while I'll be the good cop lol    

Always aim for a killing blow, everything else is a waste of time and energy. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 février 2011 - 07:19 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Always aim for a killing blow, everything else is a waste of time and energy. 

Meh. I'll take subtlety. Less waste, less animosity, less opposition. Anyone can run roughshod over one's enemies and crush them. But getting your enemy to strike the killing blow on themselves, then beg you to take over them and assimilate them....the mark of true genuis.

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Anyway, regarding Romania: if your leadership works things right, you could end up gaining more regional power and influence. You have oil, something that most European countries do not. That in itself is pretty potent leverage in todays world, especially for Europe, where they are mostly caught between Russia's energy games and instability in the Middle East. Even though your oil fields are not in the same league size wise as those in the Middle east or Russia, even smaller reserves will become more important due to international politics and unrest in regions rich in oil.

Provided of course, you don't let the EU run your national and energy policy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Always aim for a killing blow, everything else is a waste of time and energy. 

The killing blow doesn't have to be destruction and war.
An economic / political blow, or a simple assassination can be just as devastating if not more so.

Turning an enemy into an ally and using all the knowledge and infrastructure he has instead of destroying them, is for me the mark of genius.

[Costin_Razvan]

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Which is why the largest empires in our history were built using the strength of arms. Subtlety has is a useful tool but in my eyes it should not be your best tool. the army is the most important.



I do agree it is indeed the stroke of genius to take control of an entire nation without a single drop of blood, I also believe it is very unlikely many times.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Always aim for a killing blow, everything else is a waste of time and energy. 

The killing blow doesn't have to be destruction and war.
An economic / political blow, or a simple assassination can be just as devastating if not more so.

Turning an enemy into an ally and using all the knowledge and infrastructure he has instead of destroying them, is for me the mark of genius.

I'm not much of a historian to put it mildly, but in the present time economic and political blows don't do squat. My own country has set harsh economic sactions on countries like Iraq and Cuba for decades and accomplished nothing but hurting the common people. The same goes for political blows, as loud denouncements at the UN rarely accomplishes anything.

Countries seem to respond best to lethal force and bribes first, and pressure from stratigic allies second. I guess the latter example could be called a political blow, but it would have to come from an important ally of that country who breaks ranks and tells them they're wrong (or makes a backdoor deal).

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 26 février 2011 - 04:25 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Which is why the largest empires in our history were built using the strength of arms. Subtlety has is a useful tool but in my eyes it should not be your best tool. the army is the most important.

I do agree it is indeed the stroke of genius to take control of an entire nation without a single drop of blood, I also believe it is very unlikely many times.

That only makes sense. Every bit of land in the world that is worth living on has already been claimed. In order to build a new nation anywhere it must be taken from someone.

[Glorfindel709]

Economic Sanctions themselves are insufficient and are also largely ineffective. They produce more problems than fixes.

For example, when the United Nations, at the urging of the United States, put collective UN sanctions on Iraq (Resolutions 661 and 666 being the ones that did the most damage, they specifically denied imports of clean water, food, and medicine) it produced the opposite intended effect. Instead of rallying against Saddam and having a grand revolution, the people did what is called "Rally around the flag" due to the machinations of Sadamms regime. He presented the "West" as the enemy that killed 300,000 of their children due to a lack of medicine and clean water and thus consolidated his power by pointing that fury away from him and at someone else

Sanctions also are meant to target the people of a nation, unless they are specific travel embargo on leaders like Mugabe in Zimbabwe or direct money sanctions like where the United States froze Iranian assets during the 1971 Islamic Revolution where Americans were held hostage. What a sanctions' primary purpose to do is to put a squeeze on the country so that one of two things happens. 1) either the leaders of the country back down to minimize the suffering of their people and economies. 2) They dont and the people rise up against their leaders to remove what's crushing their livelihood.

Another thing to consider is the Boomerang effect of Sanctions. Many modern historians believe that the United States Oil and Scrap Metal  sanction that they put on Japan when they invaded China was one of the reasons attributing Japans attack on Pearl Harbor (The United States provided 80% of Japans Oil before our involvement in WW2)

The fact remains that Sanctions hardly ever work. For example, a study was done in 1998 of 155 sanctions that were used from 1914 to 1990, found that only 5 of sanctions actually achieved the stated goal for why they were being placed.

Modifié par Glorfindel709, 26 février 2011 - 04:47 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Which is why the largest empires in our history were built using the strength of arms. Subtlety has is a useful tool but in my eyes it should not be your best tool. the army is the most important.

I do agree it is indeed the stroke of genius to take control of an entire nation without a single drop of blood, I also believe it is very unlikely many times.

The army has other uses than fighting. 

And even then, minimizing damage and using the army for the coup de grace, after all the politicking, is possible. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2011 - 04:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
I'm not much of a historian to put it mildly, but in the present time economic and political blows don't do squat. My own country has set harsh economic sactions on countries like Iraq and Cuba for decades and accomplished nothing but hurting the common people. The same goes for political blows, as loud denouncements at the UN rarely accomplishes anything.

Countries seem to respond best to lethal force and bribes first, and pressure from stratigic allies second. I guess the latter example could be called a political blow, but it would have to come from an important ally of that country who breaks ranks and tells them they're wrong (or makes a backdoor deal).

Not talking about sanctions.

But currency manipulation, buying off their economic elites, dependency...etc.

And by political blows, I mean assassinations, coup d'etats...etc

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2011 - 04:42 .

[Glorfindel709]

KoP, it seems to me, and I could very well be wrong, that you're advocating Colonialism type politics.



What I mean is that the host country has its resources and leaders bought up (or killed) after the colonizing country enters and claims land. Once they have a seat of power economically, they attempt to impose their own political power by buying off leaders or instituting their own (British Raj or The Congo for example)



By allowing them to keep their culture you remove part of the aspect of being a conqueror in the eyes of the people and more of a custodian who gives many advantages the country wouldnt have otherwise (economically, socially, militarily etc) while the colonizing country gets to take advantage of the natural resources for economic growth

[KnightofPhoenix]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

KoP, it seems to me, and I could very well be wrong, that you're advocating Colonialism type politics.

Indeed I am.

And if culture is to be spread (and why not, culture is a powerful tool), it should be done subtetly and gradually, slowly incorperating the conquered into the conquering culture, if possible. Culture and money are heavily entertwined, and I think it's almost axiomatic that the poor would on their own seek to emulate the rich eventually. 

[Glorfindel709]

Woohoo, I knew that burgeoning History/Education degree would be useful in analyzing things!

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Which is why the largest empires in our history were built using the strength of arms. Subtlety has is a useful tool but in my eyes it should not be your best tool. the army is the most important.

I do agree it is indeed the stroke of genius to take control of an entire nation without a single drop of blood, I also believe it is very unlikely many times.

True. Ideally, there is a balance between the two. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick". In otherwords, diplomatic overtures and methods first, but have something formidable to back up your words with.  Like, an ass kicking military from hell.

Of course, given the nature of people and politics, military force is the quickest most effective method of dealing with enemies usually, and sometimes, situations are so tight you can't really wait for less destructive ways. Still, in the 21st century, I think we are in a very different scenario from times past. Before World War 1, clear back to the beginning of civilization, wars were faught on a massive scale, and it was pretty much the favorite method of getting things done. Though destructive in terms of human life and the products of civilization, recovery of some sort was always possible, if desired.

But since World War 1, where chemical and biological weapons were first used on a large scale, and the nuking of Hiroshima in World War 2, military action on the same level as past civilizations is just not a good idea, since we now have weapons that can not only kill mind boggling numbers of people in one hit, but render the land and environment uninhabitable and toxic for generations.

Which is what I think colors most people's view of war in the world today. It has become too dangerous now, beyond relatively minor "police actions" or smaller scale wars between less technologically advanced powers.

[Glorfindel709]

I personally am waiting for China to grab the baton of Imperialism that the United States wrestled from the British and sprint us right to Armageddon.

[KnightofPhoenix]

There are different kinds of war.

Total war  where you involve everything and seek to completely annihilate your enemy, not only military wise, but also economically and perhaps even demographically, which I believe is what Costin is advocating. In otherwords, break them completely.

Vs limited war, where your aim is just to defeat the military and perhaps remove the political elites, but otherwise incorperate everything else while minimizing damage, in other words just a coup de grace following all the political and economic manipulation. Which is what I prefer.

Of course I am simplifying things a lot, but war doesn't always have to be destructive. And both methods have their time and place. Sometimes, waging a total war is unnecessary and foolish, sometimes it's necessary. 

And yes, like Skadi said, military options are getting more and more limited. For now. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2011 - 05:01 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Indeed I am.

And if culture is to be spread (and why not, culture is a powerful tool), it should be done subtetly and gradually, slowly incorperating the conquered into the conquering culture, if possible. Culture and money are heavily entertwined, and I think it's almost axiomatic that the poor would on their own seek to emulate the rich eventually. 

Of course they do. Hell, it's one of the major factors of Capitalism. Even within a country, the poorer people generally seek to become like their wealthier compatriots, including imitation of fashion, philosophy, ect. And it's something I've seen in every country I've been in, with the exception of the more socialist leaning ones, where there is little motivation to pursue wealth or personal betterment, because necessity has been removed.

During the days of the British Empire, Americans sought to emulate all things British and Victorian. It is still evident even in some of the old Wild West towns, where they attempted to design at least interiors imitating Victorian English design and architecture. It is also part of the reason why even today, English accents in the US are percieved as being more educated, refined, and sophisticated. It is part of the colonial British legacy.

This also happened, and still happens, in India today, even though they became independant of the british some 60 years ago.

[Obadiah]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
...
That only makes sense. Every bit of land in the world that is worth living on has already been claimed. In order to build a new nation anywhere it must be taken from someone.

Yes... well... hope no one is doing THAT anytime soon.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Of course, such tactics take alot of time, patience, and perserverance, as well as the right institutions in place.

Which is why the largest empires in our history were built using the strength of arms. Subtlety has is a useful tool but in my eyes it should not be your best tool. the army is the most important.

I do agree it is indeed the stroke of genius to take control of an entire nation without a single drop of blood, I also believe it is very unlikely many times.

True. Ideally, there is a balance between the two. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick". In otherwords, diplomatic overtures and methods first, but have something formidable to back up your words with.  Like, an ass kicking military from hell.

Of course, given the nature of people and politics, military force is the quickest most effective method of dealing with enemies usually, and sometimes, situations are so tight you can't really wait for less destructive ways. Still, in the 21st century, I think we are in a very different scenario from times past. Before World War 1, clear back to the beginning of civilization, wars were faught on a massive scale, and it was pretty much the favorite method of getting things done. Though destructive in terms of human life and the products of civilization, recovery of some sort was always possible, if desired.

But since World War 1, where chemical and biological weapons were first used on a large scale, and the nuking of Hiroshima in World War 2, military action on the same level as past civilizations is just not a good idea, since we now have weapons that can not only kill mind boggling numbers of people in one hit, but render the land and environment uninhabitable and toxic for generations.

Which is what I think colors most people's view of war in the world today. It has become too dangerous now, beyond relatively minor "police actions" or smaller scale wars between less technologically advanced powers.

Or large scale wars where only one of the sides posses a technologically advanced military, i.e. the initial invasion of Iraq.

[Glorfindel709]

I'd hardly call Iraq a large scale war.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Of course they do. Hell, it's one of the major factors of Capitalism. Even within a country, the poorer people generally seek to become like their wealthier compatriots, including imitation of fashion, philosophy, ect. And it's something I've seen in every country I've been in, with the exception of the more socialist leaning ones, where there is little motivation to pursue wealth or personal betterment, because necessity has been removed.

During the days of the British Empire, Americans sought to emulate all things British and Victorian. It is still evident even in some of the old Wild West towns, where they attempted to design at least interiors imitating Victorian English design and architecture. It is also part of the reason why even today, English accents in the US are percieved as being more educated, refined, and sophisticated. It is part of the colonial British legacy.

This also happened, and still happens, in India today, even though they became independant of the british some 60 years ago.

I think you're talking about two different things, class envy and culture. Although I favor capitalism, no system is without drawbacks, and capitalism breads materialism and a class-based social environment. Not only do people generally want to have more money and be more successful, they also want the appearance of being so.

I don't think the American cononies were necessarily trying to immitate their British counterparts. I just think some of the British culture (as in taste in music, art, architecture, etc.) still remained. The colonies were largely comprised of migrants from Great Brittain, and other places.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 26 février 2011 - 05:22 .

[Glorfindel709]

Actually, the British colonies were largely comprised of migrants from everywhere but Great Britain. The majority of the population were German migrants, and English won the vote to be our nations language of diplomacy blah blah by three votes.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

I personally am waiting for China to grab the baton of Imperialism that the United States wrestled from the British and sprint us right to Armageddon.

The Chinese, I think, are far more reasonable than that. They are not so different than we are, or the Russians, in that they aren't interested in total annihilation. They have too much to lose to risk nuclear, chemical, or biological retalliation from the US or Russia.

The real danger of Armageddon comes not directly from the super powers, but from unstable regimes that are in possesion of, or trying to get possesion og, WMDs, mainly nukes. Like Pakistan, for example. Or Iran, if they ever get there. Nukes in the hands of superpowers is certainly unsettling, but since the superpowers are all pretty stable and generally rational, its more a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

However, if some nut job dictator with idealogical, religous, or military dellusions gets a hold of them, then we really need to worry, especially if they are particularly mentally unstable.

Which is why I feel, that moreso that the spread of "democracy" or liberation of the oppressed world wide, that political and social stability is a far more important goal internationally, even if such stable regimes are in opposition to what we think is right.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

I'd hardly call Iraq a large scale war.

Note I said the initial invasion. If you only consider a world war between many large countries to be large scale, then I will grant you that. But the initial invasion was all out, full scale conventional war.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Glorfindel709 wrote...

I personally am waiting for China to grab the baton of Imperialism that the United States wrestled from the British and sprint us right to Armageddon.

The Chinese, I think, are far more reasonable than that. They are not so different than we are, or the Russians, in that they aren't interested in total annihilation. They have too much to lose to risk nuclear, chemical, or biological retalliation from the US or Russia.

The real danger of Armageddon comes not directly from the super powers, but from unstable regimes that are in possesion of, or trying to get possesion og, WMDs, mainly nukes. Like Pakistan, for example. Or Iran, if they ever get there. Nukes in the hands of superpowers is certainly unsettling, but since the superpowers are all pretty stable and generally rational, its more a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

However, if some nut job dictator with idealogical, religous, or military dellusions gets a hold of them, then we really need to worry, especially if they are particularly mentally unstable.

Which is why I feel, that moreso that the spread of "democracy" or liberation of the oppressed world wide, that political and social stability is a far more important goal internationally, even if such stable regimes are in opposition to what we think is right.

Chemical and biological weapons are not in the cards for the US to use, although nuclear certainly is. And even then that would only be used in retaliation if China used theirs.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

Actually, the British colonies were largely comprised of migrants from everywhere but Great Britain. The majority of the population were German migrants, and English won the vote to be our nations language of diplomacy blah blah by three votes.

Really? I did not know that. So in the late 1700's the  'British' colonies were comprised mostly of German imigrants?