Subj : Re: Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy To : Lee Lofaso From : alexander koryagin Date : Tue Aug 06 2013 22:04:16 Hi, Lee Lofaso! I read your message from 05.08.2013 00:44 about Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy. BK>>> All true, and irrelevant. Any state that wants that control will BK>>> develop the technology to give it that control. The only answer BK>>> is to develop an electorate that will kick out any government BK>>> that tries to gain that much control. Dictatorships will try, and BK>>> all that will stop them is their inability to do so, or a BK>>> populous that will overthrow them. ak>> Such things have been very possible until technology was not too ak>> high. It is like Vietnam war - the victorious Vietnamese ak>> resistance had sense only when American technology to kill and spy ak>> was not at a very high level. The Vietnamese were able to defend ak>> themselves and kick out the Americans. LL> You've got it all wrong. The Americans won the war, not the LL> Vietnamese. That is why the Vietnamese call it The American War, LL> not The Vietnamese War. However, I must clarify a few things about LL> the war that you may not be aware of - LL> After the Americans won the war, the South Vietnamese Army went on LL> to lose it. How did the SVA manage that? It is really quite easy to LL> understand. The SVA were trained by the French, and the SVA LL> officers had lots of American money. When their brethren from the LL> North Vietnamese Army arrived, the privates in the SVA fled into LL> the hills without firing a shot, and the officers in the SVA paid LL> boat owners to take them to Hong Kong (and other exotic LL> destinations). Of course, the high command in the SVA had more LL> American money than everybody else and were able to buy a plane LL> ticket to America. ;=) Well, well, who doubts around the world that American history books tell that the Vietnam war was victorious for the US? Propaganda doesn't allow the opposite, especially if the opposite is humiliating. But in this case the USSR had won the Afghan war, too. The USSR had won the war, victoriously left the country, and Afghan government forces, then, shamefully lost everything, fighting with the Taliban resistance. AK>> And such a scenario will be impossible in the near future, when AK>> the US technology to kill will be like an army of Terminators. LL> High tech breaks down easily, and in many cases does not work at LL> all. Not only that, but low tech can often get the job done twice LL> as fast, with minimal time needed to learn. Americans thought they LL> could take over and subdue the people of Afghanistan in a matter of LL> weeks. Ditto with the invasion of Iraq. However, even with the best LL> equipped and best trained army in the world, the American military LL> was unable to truly conquer either the people of Afghanistan or the LL> people of Iraq. Why? Because when Americans are finished doing what LL> they do, Americans go home, while the people in those countries LL> never leave. Victory -- is a situation when an invading side gets what it wanted before the invasion. We know what the US declared before each invasion. The US invaded into Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, the US invaded in Iraq to destroy its stockpiles of weapon of mass destruction. The US had killed hundreds of thousand of people; but has it got what it wanted before the war? No, of course, because Bin Laden moved to Pakistan in 2001, and there were no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is not victorious, but sick and crazy. Just as the current situation at the territories occupied by the Americans during those invasions. ak>> Is is a very wrong idea to suppose that special forces, secret ak>> services are consisted of usual people, and, therefore, they will ak>> never wring people's hands. In reality, such forces are mostly ak>> amoral, they are proud of their discipline and of their readiness ak>> to carry out any orders. They give an oath and they must obey. In ak>> addition, military people as a rule are not people of high ak>> intellect. Such people are not interested in politics, they easily ak>> can be persuaded that they do right things and save the country, ak>> whereas they actually oppress it. In Russia now, millions of ak>> strong, young, ignorant people are working in special forces ak>> (OMON), police - and it is very dangerous for democracy, because ak>> any public movement can be suppressed easily. LL> Soldiering is an honorable profession. Soldiers are not amoral, but LL> in a way must do their jobs in an amoral manner. I did not say LL> immoral. When inducted in the army, a soldier has to be taught to LL> kill - to do something totally against his/her true nature. The LL> soldier is sent off to war, to kill others. A most reprehensible LL> thought. When the soldier returns home, he/she often has no help or LL> support from his/her (military) family. The former soldier is left LL> to defend for himself/herself a way of life he/she has long LL> forgotten. First of all, I told of a host of servicemen whose task is to suppress popular meetings and movements. To suppress not only by tear gas and buttons, but also by spying on their own people. To obey orders without thinking is their main danger for democracy. The less such people the better. Especially if such people are amoral, high educated specialists for spying. AK>> In short, I want to say that in future, an effective people's AK>> resistance can be as impossible as Vietnamese resistance if AK>> Vietnam war would happen in future. LL> No way Vietnam war can happen in future. No more French to train LL> the Vietnamese privates. French too old for that sort of thing. No LL> more American money to pay the Vietnamese officers. Americans have LL> enough problems paying their own bills. It was an allegory, I repeat it. I tried to explain why resistanse in high tech future will be doomed to defeat. That is why we should not use this high technology to spy on everyone now. AK>> Dictatorship is possible without any dictator. A group of people AK>> can fetch power and do with the country what they want. LL> The only true dictatorship possible is a benevolent dictatorship. LL> All other dictatorsips are government by committee. It is not important if people are dictated by one person or a group. It is dictatorship anyway. Bye, Lee! Alexander Koryagin fido7.debate 2013 --- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds * Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2) .