twilight2000-digest Tuesday, September 23 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 057 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Something else than russian attack Re: Something else than russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: Something else than russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack PzKw Maus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:13:25 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Saul Basgen wrote: > I disagree. Why is it not possible for a guerilla force to militarily > defeat thier enemy, whether it be a conventional force or otherwsie? They're GUERILLAS. They're the underdogs. Their logsitical support comes from outside sources that are interested in seeing them wage a low level war against a state. Guerillas cannot win outright but they can make the forces in power lives' msierable, destroy infrastructure, and can negotiate a settled peace with their opposition but to outright win a war.... No... > INITIALLY the Soviets had not *expected* to stay for more than acouple > months. This strategy however, was very quickly changed. But the mujaheedin didn't "win" against the Soviets? They didn't take any Soviet positions or march on Moscow. they did prove to be too tough a nut to crack and even tougher because the US through Pakistan were giving the "dushman" aid and support. And in the grand schmeme of things- a Soviet detente of the altter 1980s where Gorbachev wanted to change the Soviet Union's relation with the West especially the US and what better to show a change of heart than to pull out of Afghanistan? Make no bones the Soviets at the height of their Afghan involvement had less than a quarter of a million troops compared to half a million of the US in Vietnam. They would ahve eventually won- should they opt to kill everybody in that country who didn't embrace Lenin or Marx... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 06:23:31 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack >>Make no bones the Soviets at the height of their Afghan involvement had less than a quarter of a million troops compared to half a million of the US in Vietnam. They would ahve eventually won- should they opt to kill everybody in that country who didn't embrace Lenin or Marx...<< Hi Mike, Don't think so. The Sovs had no more chance of winning in Afgan than we did in 'Nam. You aren't fighting an army you are fighting a culture, a way of life that has existed long before you showed up, and will exist long after. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:15:49 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack mark h walker wrote: > Don't think so. The Sovs had no more chance of winning in Afgan than we > did in 'Nam. You aren't fighting an army you are fighting a culture, a > way of life that has existed long before you showed up, and will exist > long after. All conventional armies have the ability to "win" outright. It's call making one's opponents an extinct form of life. Target areas where guerilla oepration is ehaviest and start spraying the area down with herbicides, poisoning the water wells, blowing up irrigation channels, shooting men, women and children indiscriminately... In short kill 'em all... Political will to do us is another matter. Guerilla armies do have the ability to make wars unpopular and grind down a state's infrastructure and economy but do not pose a threat to conventional armies. Tet style offensives fail for these reasons. Geurillas are also supported by other states for respective poltiical reasons and often those reasons are territorial expansion or local hedgmony. In the case of Vietnam the US did not seriously take war to its enemies and thereby letting supply lines go untouched. In Afghanistan the Soviet realized they couldn't stop the supply of hardware flowing to the guerillas without nuking Pakistan- a US proxy which would undoubtedly cause some concern given that the US has used pakistan as a Cold War front but domestic opposition to the war in Afghnaistan was never akin to Vietnam (due to the nature of the Soviet state; talk too much and you'll end up in the gulag, a mental hopsital, or exiled)and the decision to withdraw came only on behalf of Gorbachev's good will gesture to President Bush and the subsequent fall of Eastern Europe... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:23:28 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack > They're GUERILLAS. They're the underdogs. Their logsitical >support comes from outside sources that are interested in seeing them >wage a low level war against a state. Guerillas cannot win outright >but they can make the forces in power lives' msierable, destroy >infrastructure, and can negotiate a settled peace with their opposition >but to outright win a war.... No... You have yet to provide ANY evidence supporting this claim... while I do feel that I have provided evidence that speaks otherwise... > But the mujaheedin didn't "win" against the Soviets? They didn't >take any Soviet positions or march on Moscow. If to defeat any enemy is to take thier capital, or for that matter thier land, the I severly misunderstand warfare. I do believe that they won. They were defending thier country, that was thier objective, and they accomplished this excellentlly. they did prove to be too >tough a nut to crack and even tougher because the US through Pakistan >were giving the "dushman" aid and support. And in the grand schmeme >of things- a Soviet detente of the altter 1980s where Gorbachev wanted >to change the Soviet Union's relation with the West especially the US >and what better to show a change of heart than to pull out of >Afghanistan? While this was one of the factors in the decision, there were others too, that we cannot deny. Among them were the casualties, the extremly low moral, and maybe, just maybe... Gorbachev had a heart.... ... > Make no bones the Soviets at the height of their Afghan >involvement had less than a quarter of a million troops compared >to half a million of the US in Vietnam. They would ahve eventually >won- should they opt to kill everybody in that country This is my point. The ONLY way they could have one would have been to annihilate EVERY person in the country. To me, that is quite a military obstacle. I do not believe they could have done it without massive chemical warfare or ballistic nuclear warfare. These things of course, are unrealistic and unlikely to have had happened. who didn't >embrace Lenin or Marx... In 1978 the Soviet Union did not have ANYTHING to do with Lenin or Marx's philosphies. Let alone actually present Lenin's and Marx's ideals on others! That's synomous to saying a professional soldier who teaches the enemy with his ideas and soul instead of his weapons! _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:37:56 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Saul Basgen wrote: > You have yet to provide ANY evidence supporting this claim... while I do > feel that I have provided evidence that speaks otherwise... Did the mujaheedin ever drive the Red Army while Moscow that it necessary to support their proxies in Kabul? No? Did the VC ever achieve any sort of tactical let alone strategic victory against the US? Angola- did Jonas Savambi's forces were ever able to defeat their government opposition? in south africa did the ANC or its MK militant faction were able to defeat the white government by force of arms. Cambodia- Vietnam backing Hun Sen versus various factions ranging from the Khmer Rouge to the the Khmer Serkia forces. Nicaragua- were the Contras ever able to march through Managua in a victory parade? El Salvador- did FMLN eve raise the red banner over the presidential palace in san Salvador. How about those ewxamples. Guerillas are a useful poltical tool. They can negotiate a peace relatively favorable to themselves but at the smae time lack the firepower, resources, or numbers to take a country by force of arms unless there's an utter collpase in order. > If to defeat any enemy is to take thier capital, or for that matter thier > land, the I severly misunderstand warfare. I do believe that they won. They > were defending thier country, that was thier objective, and they > accomplished this excellentlly. To defeat your enemy you must crush their army and drive the remnants to the wind, pillage and destroy their lands, and reduce their cities to a rubble. To cripple an enemy so effectively that he throws himself at your feet begging for mercy offering his omwen and children for tribute. That is defeat. to destroy an enemy so he does not pose a threat to your political goals. that the eenmy can longer wage any sort of war against you and you can dictate the outcome of the future. > While this was one of the factors in the decision, there were others too, > that we cannot deny. Among them were the casualties, the extremly low > moral, and maybe, just maybe... Gorbachev had a heart.... ... Gorbachev's decision came from two factors a)wanting to wind down hostilties with the united states down afdter more than four decades of mutual contempt, fear, suspicion, and a state of armed paranoia. Second political gain did match any commensurate expenditure in manpower or the general expense to deploy a quarter of a million men in a Central Asian state that had little in terms of natural resources the Soviet Union could use. In short Gorbachev believed that Afghanistan didn't fit his vision of a new Soviet Union... > This is my point. The ONLY way they could have one would have been to > annihilate EVERY person in the country. To me, that is quite a military > obstacle. I do not believe they could have done it without massive chemical > warfare or ballistic nuclear warfare. These things of course, are > unrealistic and unlikely to have had happened. There is. It's called killing everything and everybody. Just the possible poltical costs would ahve been two high. Gorbachev may not have given a goddamn about public opinion polls- authoritarian regimes are like that but his attempts at a new detente would ahve unraveled at his feet. Using chemical weaponry and even nuclear firepower is quite easy. At any given point Frontal Aviation could have reduced every village anf refugee camp into a radioactive wasteland. Poisoning the area with VX or G type nerve compuds or msutard agents. The Red Army has no real qualms about doing so... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:12:04 -0400 (EDT) From: JTIFFER@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack In 1978 the Soviet Union did not have ANYTHING to do with Lenin or Marx's philosphies. Let alone actually present Lenin's and Marx's ideals on others! That's synomous to saying a professional soldier who teaches the enemy with his ideas and soul instead of his weapons! Just a pointed philosophical reminder: isn't the goal of conquering a people the imposition of one's philosophy (and thus governement) upon them? I would suggest that the maintainance of an entire conquered nation requires a static governmental system. If the satellite country doesn't adhere to the mother country's particular form of rulership, the result is inevitably continued revolution (I would point to good 'ole American know-how during our revolutionary period). It is true that in '78 the Sovs weren't preaching Lenin or Marx, but I disagree with the concept of one's attitudes and soul being a weapon. The imposition of said attributes also eleminates the need for genocide; the nation agrees with the conquering country, so there's no need to wipe out the entire populace. Perhaps I'm just young and naive. Fire at will... Justin "Always am I the beast of burden for others. Life is very sad. Death will probably be very sad. At least there is symmetry." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:24:09 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack JTIFFER@aol.com wrote: > Just a pointed philosophical reminder: isn't the goal of conquering a people > the imposition of one's philosophy (and thus governement) upon them? Among other things. That's the consolidation part. Convince the masses that you defeated your way of life is by definiton superior and theirs was backward and primitive and through your generosity you will help they achieve greatness (under your tuteledge). Congradualtions- white man's burden. Imperialism. > If the satellite country doesn't adhere to the mother > country's particular form of rulership, the result is inevitably continued > revolution (I would point to good 'ole American know-how during our > revolutionary period). No. If a satellite state offended its overlods you get Hungary in 1956 and Czechosolvakia in 1968 and it almost happened to Poland in 1980 although Brezhnev at this timer was old and sick but the Polish government at the time opted to impose marital law rather than let Soviet tanks roll on over and sconsidering Poles are a people who generally think the Russians are in the same lot as the Germans a Soviet invasion would equal a bloodbath. The world in its fundamental nature is run by the sword. In Western states- where by tradition and law the state derives power from the conest of its people and the people choose its rulers the sword is put away until there's a tgrave threat to the existence to the state. In autoritarian and totalitarian regimes where the state is run by a definite non-elected elite or military junta or top members of the single and ruling party the state must use the bayonets to enforce its will... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:29:36 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack > All conventional armies have the ability to "win" outright. It's call >making one's opponents an extinct form of life. Target areas where >guerilla >oepration is ehaviest and start spraying the area down with herbicides, >poisoning the water wells, blowing up irrigation channels, shooting men, >women and children indiscriminately... In short kill 'em all... >Political >will to do us is another matter. Guerilla armies do have the ability to >make >wars unpopular and grind down a state's infrastructure and economy but >do not pose a threat to conventional armies. Tet style offensives fail >for these reasons. Geurillas are also supported by other states for >respective poltiical reasons and often those reasons are territorial >expansion or local hedgmony. There are many many many many ways to win. You seem to believe that there is only one: To completly and totally annhilate the enemy. On this point I disagree. This seems to be the core of our misunderstanding. If indeed that was the only way to win, then I would agree, Guerillas cannot achieve this goal. It is however, my belief, that there are countless ways to defeat you're enemy or win a war. In any event, with you're idea of what it means to win, has there ever been a winner? Saul _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:48:08 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack > Did the mujaheedin ever drive the Red Army while Moscow that it >necessary to support their proxies in Kabul? No? Did the VC ever achieve >any sort of tactical let alone strategic victory against the US? Not necessary. Who won these battles? You say that the guerillas did not. If they did not 'win', fine. They did however repel the foreign invaders, and they did it well. Vietnam, we cannot use as an example however, for the VC were an army using guerilla tactics... they of course, were not guerillas (In the case that they were however, I would consider taking the entire southern poriton of the country quite a tactical victory). Angola- >did Jonas Savambi's forces were ever able to defeat their government >opposition? No, but alas, I know next to nothing on this matter. in south africa did the ANC or its MK militant faction were >able to defeat the white government by force of arms. hmmm... Is aparthied still is South Africa? If not, i would say that that is the fulfillment of thier goals. Cambodia- Vietnam >backing Hun Sen versus various factions ranging from the Khmer Rouge >to the the Khmer Serkia forces. These are conventional armies. Nicaragua- were the Contras ever able >to march through Managua in a victory parade? No. El Salvador- did FMLN >eve raise the red banner over the presidential palace in san Salvador. >How about those ewxamples. Those are good. I'm sure there are even more. Mao's China is a good example of a partisan military taking over an existing regime... Or those problems the Soviet Union had with Yugoslavia in the 50's... I'm not trying to say that guerillas are always effective, most of the time, they are not. But, they can be awesome fighting forces. The Jews and the Afghanis have provided us with some heroic examples. >> If to defeat any enemy is to take thier capital, or for that matter thier >> land, the I severly misunderstand warfare. I do believe that they won. They >> were defending thier country, that was thier objective, and they >> accomplished this excellentlly. > > > To defeat your enemy you must crush their army and drive the >remnants to the wind, pillage and destroy their lands, and reduce their >cities >to a rubble. To cripple an enemy so effectively that he throws himself >at your >feet begging for mercy offering his omwen and children for tribute. > That is defeat. to destroy an enemy so he does not pose a threat to >your political goals. that the eenmy can longer wage any sort of war >against >you and you can dictate the outcome of the future. You have an awfully powerfull vision of what constitutes winning. No mercy huh? It seems to me that such a complete annihilation could only be brought about by gennocide. > Gorbachev's decision came from two factors a)wanting to wind down >hostilties with the united states down afdter more than four decades of >mutual contempt, fear, suspicion, and a state of armed paranoia. Second >political gain did match any commensurate expenditure in manpower >or the general expense to deploy a quarter of a million men in a Central >Asian state that had little in terms of natural resources the Soviet >Union could use. In short Gorbachev believed that Afghanistan didn't >fit his vision of a new Soviet Union... This might be, I do not want to stray off the topic. But I think he had other things in mind too... > There is. It's called killing everything and everybody. Just the >possible poltical costs would ahve been two high. PRECISELY why it would not happen. > Using chemical weaponry and even nuclear firepower is quite easy. Oh really? Easy without thinking about the ENOURMOUS reprocutions... sure... that's easy... who cares about radiation, the destruction of our world... we want to kill the bad guys right?? and all thier children... and all thier pets, and animals... and plants... and contaminate all thier soil and water... all thier food... and well... if it means that we might die off... well... let's not think about that.... because killing the bad guys are more important... _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:57:04 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack >Just a pointed philosophical reminder: isn't the goal of conquering a people >the imposition of one's philosophy (and thus governement) upon them? Of course. I would >suggest that the maintainance of an entire conquered nation requires a static >governmental system. If the satellite country doesn't adhere to the mother >country's particular form of rulership, the result is inevitably continued >revolution Certainly. but I disagree with the concept of one's attitudes and soul >being a weapon. The imposition of said attributes also eleminates the need >for genocide; the nation agrees with the conquering country, so there's no >need to wipe out the entire populace. I don't understand what you are saying here, but I did mean that as an analogy. I meant that a country who's practices are opposite to Lenninsim/Marxism, cannot possibly teach others about Lenninism/Marxism. On the same token, a professional soldier (or at least the one in my example) knows only his weapons, and hasn't a wit for politics. Perhaps, a bad analogy. >Perhaps I'm just young and naive. Too very good things. > Fire at will... I suppose our discourse seems to be more a confrontation than a discussion? If so, I appologize. Saul _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:28:46 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Saul Basgen wrote: > There are many many many many ways to win. You seem to believe that there > is only one: To completly and totally annhilate the enemy. On this point I > disagree. Complete and total destruction of the enemy, his resoruces, his ability to wage war SHOULD BE THE ONLY GOAL. Von Clausewitz is correct in this regard. Because war is so terrible in terms of costs- monetary and men when a state goes to war it should be the sole purpose of totally crushing the enemy. Anything else is a waste of resources, timer, effort, and talent. If you can't paly to win then you better get to the sidelines because the fifty yard line is only for teams who believe in clobbering the side with the different jerseys and helmets. > This seems to be the core of our misunderstanding. If indeed that was the > only way to win, then I would agree, Guerillas cannot achieve this goal. It > is however, my belief, that there are countless ways to defeat you're enemy > or win a war. In any event, with you're idea of what it means to win, has > there ever been a winner? Yes. Genghis Khan. The Second World War. Invasions left and right. Every war every military conflict armies decide upon crushing their enemies within the region so their states can gain the booty they have shedded blood for. War is the extension of poltics. People use it all the time to change the order of things and boundaries between states. Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:46:28 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Saul Basgen wrote: > Not necessary. Who won these battles? You say that the guerillas did not. > If they did not 'win', fine. They did however repel the foreign invaders, > and they did it well. Vietnam, we cannot use as an example however, for the > VC were an army using guerilla tactics... they of course, were not > guerillas (In the case that they were however, I would consider taking the > entire southern poriton of the country quite a tactical victory). Charlie Cong posed no threat to the US force there; however, he did make the poltical costs to high for America to continue to pour money and troops into the region. Even Hanoi had to deal with settled peace- which was far better than what the French opted to do after Dien Bien Phu. The US used Linebacker I and II to save face in which the US Navy and USAF went on the total rampage attacking poltically verboten targets, mining Haiphong Harbor, destroying AA gun and SAM sites, hitting power generating stations, the whole nine yards. The US negotiated a withdrawal with the North Vietnamese not their Viet Cong bretheren guerillas. The NVA won the war with its Southern neighbor. Not the Viet Cong. > hmmm... Is aparthied still is South Africa? If not, i would say that that > is the fulfillment of thier goals. Only because the white leadership was willing to give up their control over the affairs of South Africa nbot because of ANC idealism. > Those are good. I'm sure there are even more. Mao's China is a good example > of a partisan military taking over an existing regime... Or those problems > the Soviet Union had with Yugoslavia in the 50's... I'm not trying to say > that guerillas are always effective, most of the time, they are not. But, > they can be awesome fighting forces. The Jews and the Afghanis have > provided us with some heroic examples. And the Romans scattered the Jews to the wind and a second Israel came only in 1948 after a Holocaust. If a state finds a people very troublesome they said group will find themselves exiled, their cities sacked and bruning, and their fields sowed with salt and will be left with only tear filled memories. Had the Soviets found the Afghanis extremely incompatible with their goals they would have been vulture food. And Ivan doesn't dick around. Mao won only by the support of the Soviet Union and overall economic and poltical collpase of the KMT. Tito and his bandits rolled on through because they were the only game in town and German troops were needed elsewhere. > You have an awfully powerfull vision of what constitutes winning. No mercy > huh? It seems to me that such a complete annihilation could only be brought > about by gennocide. Genocide? An ugly word and one that constitutes the entire destruction of an ethnic group purely on some sort of pseudoscience or racial hatred. That is not the basis behind going to war. The basis is to make sure these people will not have the ability to raise arms against you- usually though one's army must take their destruction to the elvel of completely destroying their enemy's state. I believe in states using the full extent of their military might should they find themselves emroiled in a war and only stop until A)they can hammer out a peace with an enemy in which the enemy begs for mercy or B)until totally crushed by their enemies. There is no middle ground. Fight until you can fight no more. > Oh really? Easy without thinking about the ENOURMOUS reprocutions... > sure... that's easy... who cares about radiation, the destruction of our > world... we want to kill the bad guys right?? and all thier children... and > all thier pets, and animals... and plants... and contaminate all thier soil > and water... all thier food... and well... if it means that we might die > off... well... let's not think about that.... because killing the bad guys > are more important... Killing the enemy should be the only concern. Some regimes actual care because of the nature of their governmental systems. Others well- in this word Hama rules. And read what Syria's Assad opted to do to one city that was rebellious against Ba'ath party rule. Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:59:51 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: Something else than russian attack I have found one odd thing in GDW:Heavy Weapons Handbook. Is it true that magazine in flame throwers are only 5? Are they really so small? " Mr. Nobody " ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:48:57 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Something else than russian attack Pietu wrote: > > I have found one odd thing in GDW:Heavy Weapons Handbook. Is it true that > magazine in flame throwers are only 5? Are they really so small? > > > " Mr. Nobody " Yep. Pick up Jane's Infantry Weapons. There is a reason why incendiary weapons have alrgely been phased out of the US and Soviet/Russian militaries. A)Flamethrowers have small fuel tanks- only 5-6 gallons/15-20 gallons of napalm (or if you're really cheap gas mixed with diesel) and B)total firing time is around thirty seconds. So if you really wanna hose down an area for a long period of time get a M48 series Zippo tank. Again the modern replacement for flamethrowers have been rocket launchers like the RPO-A or M202A1 with warheads full of incendiary material which has a 300 plus range and has a respectable burst radii. Of course here's the plus to flamethrowers- napalm does burn for a fairly long time around 30 seconds and will ignite anything that can burn making fires hard to put out. In enclosed areas- aphysixation due to the fact the fire in consuming all the oxygen present if not actual charbroiling... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:04:36 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-21 21:54:48 EDT, you write: > Tet style offensives fail > for these reasons Wasn't tet a mass attack by the NVA (a regular-not guerilla -army)? I think it was........ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:03:03 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Something else than russian attack In a message dated 97-09-22 06:01:43 EDT, you write: > Are they really so small? no. But it does eject a long steady stream of Jellied gasoline, and perhaps each "shot" takes a few seconds to complete (I dunno i have not fired, first hand, a flamethrower)................ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:24:37 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-21 21:55:16 EDT, you write: > > You have yet to provide ANY evidence supporting this claim... while I do > feel that I have provided evidence that speaks otherwise... i am sorry, Armchair generals (and even worse- armchair combat vets) need to provide no evidence whatsoever. They merely need to produce long winded accounts on why they are correct and never wrong. Are we clear on this one? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:44:27 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-22 06:01:43 EDT, you write: > Charlie Cong posed no threat to the US force there really? Um......were you a soldier in Vietnam? if you were, I'd think you might reword that one......................................... come to think of it, what military training have you had? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:20:26 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > Wasn't tet a mass attack by the NVA (a regular-not guerilla -army)? > I think it was........ Both. Hanoi gave the go ahead for the VC to launch their assault in hopes of wquickly ending the war in their favor and committed several infantry division. Mainly the siege of Khe Sanh. The siege failed with Marines able to constantly resupply themselves by air and had complete air superiority in addition elements of the First Cavalry Division (then a light air mobile unit) would eventually make their way and relieve Marines. VC attempts to do any damage in Saigon failed completely and their atrocities in Hue caused the RVN forces to stiffen their backs and with American Marines and cavalrymen retook the city in slow block by block fighting during the Battle of the Citadel in 1968 which goes down in the annals of Marine hsitory of its more glorious moments. Tet failed and completely destoryed the VC as an effective military force and from that point on the NVA would be the only concern.... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 23:19:18 -0600 From: Mark Subject: PzKw Maus Panzerkampfwagon =8CMaus=B9 Porsche 205 Super heavy tank In June 1942, Porsche of Stuttgart were ordered by Hitler to start = designing a superheavy tank, mounting a 12.8cm gun, and having = maximum possible armour. Trials were to commence in May 1943. Many = difficulties arose. For example, the air-cooled motor did not = materialize, and the V1 vehicle had to be fitted with a modified = MB509 aircraft engine, the V2 with a MB517 diesel. The Porsche = longitudinal torsion bar suspension had to be abandoned as there was = insufficient space for the number of stations needed to carry the = continually growing weight. Meanwhile, an order had been placed for = a production series of 150, but in October 1943, this was cancelled. = The V1 prototype was tested with a simulated turret in December 1943, = and with a turret and armament in June 1944, but the engine was = destroyed in an accident and was not replaced until April 1945. Both = prototypes were blown up at Kummersdorf. Manufacturer: Alkett 2 Prototypes, 9 under construction Crew: 5 Engine: MB509 V1 or = MB517 diesel V2 Weight: 188 tons Gearbox: 2 forward, 2 reverse Length: 10.09 m Speed: 20 kph Width: 3.67 m Range: 186 km Height: 3.66 m Radio: FuG5 Armament: One 12.8cm KwK44 L/55 One 7.5cm KwK44 L/36.5 One 7.92mm MG34 Traverse:360=B0 (power) Elevation: -7=B0 to +23=B0 Sight: ZF Ammunition: 32 x 12.8cm 200 x 7.5cm Armour (mm/angle) Front Side = Rear Top/Bottom Turret: 240/round 200/30=B0 = 200/7=B0 40/90=B0 Superstructure: 200/55=B0 180+100/0=B0 = 180/38=B0 80-40/90=B0 Hull: 200/35=B0 180/0=B0 = 180/30=B0 100-40/90=B0 Gun mantlet: 240/Saukopfblende From Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two 1978 USA Name: PzKw Maus Crew: 5 Wt: 188 F Cap: 5022 F Con: 540 Tr Mov: 29/6 Cbt Mov: 7/1 HF: 60 HS: 56 HR: 54 TF: 48 TS: 40 TR: 40 T: 8 B: 20 Sus: 15 Rof Dam Pen Blk = Mag Brst Rng MG-34 10 4 2-3-Nil 6 = 50B 4 125 Rld Rng/IFR = Ammo Dam Pen 12.8cm KwK44 L/55 2 400 AP = 28 80/70/60/50 400 = APCBC 28 90/80/70/60 400 = HCS C:10 B:20 110c 400 = HE C:14 B:28 1c Rld Rng/IFR = Ammo Dam Pen 7.5cm KwK44 L/36.5 1 275 APC = 16 8/4/2 275 = APCBC 16 12/6/3 250 = AP40 16 16/10/7 275/7000 = HCS C:6 B:12 20c 275/7000 = HE C:6 B:12 -3c 275/7000 = CHEM C:3 B:20 Nil 50 = Cannister C:6 B:12 4/3/3/-1 Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one: it = is the man and not the materials that count. - Mao Tsetung ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #57 ************************************