Gawain 0
QuoteForce has never changed anyone.
Worked rather well on the Japanese.
MrBounce 0
QuoteQuoteQaddafi didn't change as a result of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli. He changed as a result of diplomacy.
Negative. Qaddafi changed as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Not entirely. Qaddafi was under diplomatic and economic pressure and involved in negotiations for many years. The invasion of Iraq was merely the culmination of several streams of pressure on his regime, diplomatic, economic and military.
One of the main (unstated) reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to put pressure on neighbouring Middle Eastern regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, etc. In order to convince them to make internal changes and thereby lessen the degree of support that the jihadists and other terrorist organisations were receiving from those countries.
QuoteSecular democracy & a regulated free market IS the best performing regime - far better than ANY single party state or command economy. That can be shown by example! Forcing a change on people merely breeds resentment.
I agree with the all but the last sentence.
Force can be used to implement change, but you then have to:
a) Sell that change to the local populace
b) Ensure that the change works
If you attempt to force change on an unwilling populace and you don't get their support, then you have to have the remaining threat of force to get that change to stick. The instant you remove that force, the local populace will revolt. This tends to be why invasions of foreign countries never fully work. As long as the local populace retains its own identity and a sense of occupation, they will not co-operate. Convince them that they want what you've got and you'll have them.
Gavin
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQaddafi didn't change as a result of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli. He changed as a result of diplomacy.
Negative. Qaddafi changed as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Not entirely. Qaddafi was under diplomatic and economic pressure and involved in negotiations for many years. The invasion of Iraq was merely the culmination of several streams of pressure on his regime, diplomatic, economic and military.
One of the main (unstated) reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to put pressure on neighbouring Middle Eastern regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, etc. In order to convince them to make internal changes and thereby lessen the degree of support that the jihadists and other terrorist organisations were receiving from those countries.
Point taken, but to say that the "diplomatic" pressure he was receiving was of any substance is overstating it. There were no significant sanctions in place and Libya's political complex was quietly building the infrastructure for a military doctrine that could have been disasterous. When Qaddafi finally decided to call it quits, he didn't use any diplomatic channels, or the UN, he contacted the UK and US directly. That shows how much the diplomacy really meant in my opinion.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Kinaa 0
Regarding the Iranian army, this page has lots of pictures of their army. They are pretty interesting.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/391461/thread/1110666012/last-1110704935/Pictures+section+is+done
http://www.network54.com/Forum/391461/thread/1110666012/last-1110704935/Pictures+section+is+done
My brother in law was a conscript in the Iranian army for 18 months. Judging from his experience and treatment most of the Iranian armed forces are probably trained to be no more than cannon fodder. Pretty much everyone is his company was ill during basic training due to also only given one uniform, then he spent the balance of his time guarding a museum! I assume that the guys in the regular forces are probably trained and equipped to a higher standard than the conscripts, but it is conscripts which make up the majority of the army.
Judging from most of the pictures on the website mentioned above their military hardware is a mish mash of original gear bought in the 70's or copies of stuff which dates back to the 60's and 70's. Maybe numbers would tell but I would put my money on US equipment being superior and more effective in most situations if push comes to shove.
Judging from most of the pictures on the website mentioned above their military hardware is a mish mash of original gear bought in the 70's or copies of stuff which dates back to the 60's and 70's. Maybe numbers would tell but I would put my money on US equipment being superior and more effective in most situations if push comes to shove.
Negative. Qaddafi changed as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Later that year, Libyan secret agents contacted MI6 and CIA to offer Libyan surrender of nuclear and chemical weapons programs (all far more advanced than anyone guessed).
True, however to say it was "diplomatic pressure" was a bit polite in my opinion.
Not the case at all.
I agree with the all but the last sentence.
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!