Elections Canada's uneven playing field

[M.Dancer]

We didn't destroy nazism completely. We destroyed their army but we didn't destroy the ideology. The allies struggled for years with de-nazification programs and they all failed completely.

Completely?

Do you want a chance to edit that?

[nicky10013]

Well if you have your own private definition of an amred conflict, feel free to share it.

The normal definition of war still holds true...

The defintion of war has changed from industrialized war between states with uniformed militaries to a war among the people. The former can be defeated through normal military means, the latter cannot.

[nicky10013]

Completely?

Do you want a chance to edit that?

No, because we didn't.

[M.Dancer]

The defintion of war has changed from industrialized war between states with uniformed militaries to a war among the people. The former can be defeated through normal military means, the latter cannot.

At this point you ahve waded into a depth above your head.

Your definition holds true only if you ignore all the other examples that don't fit. Shall I ramble some off for you?

The American Indian Wars

The Phillipine Insurgency

T.E Lawrence's campaigns

Haitian Revolution

Irish Rebellion

Boxer Rebellion

....and so on.

Your limited definition of what war is doesn't fly.

[nicky10013]

At this point you ahve waded into a depth above your head.

Your definition holds true only if you ignore all the other examples that don't fit. Shall I ramble some off for you?

The American Indian Wars

The Phillipine Insurgency

T.E Lawrence's campaigns

Haitian Revolution

Irish Rebellion

Boxer Rebellion

....and so on.

Your limited definition of what war is doesn't fly.

With the exception of the indians due to genocide, the peoples of all those conflicts eventually reached their goals. China, the Phillipines, Ireland and yes even Haiti are all independent nations now. No? Just because a certain action is put down doens't mean the idea dies which is why these movements can't be defeated.

The ultimate example of both your idea and mine is Poland. They were partitioned 3 times, yet the Polish people never forgot who they were and fought for their independence.

[M.Dancer]

With the exception of the indians due to genocide, the peoples of all those conflicts eventually reached their goals. China, the Phillipines, Ireland and yes even Haiti are all independent nations now. No? Just because a certain action is put down doens't mean the idea dies which is why these movements can't be defeated.

I won't quibble whether the the fighters of the philipine insurgency are the ones who gained independence 50 years later...or that the fighter of the Boxer rebellion....and so on...all of that is irrelevant. You made an erroneous claim about condition of war, how it was and how it is now. Those events listed prove your claim is fallicious.

The ultimate example of both your idea and mine is Poland. They were partitioned 3 times, yet the Polish people never forgot who they were and fought for their independence.

And? So? How are the national ambitions of Prussia doing these days? When will Breton be free?

[M.Dancer]

I should like to add that the Philippine insurgency failed, they accepted defeat and the US ruled the Islands in relative peace for 50 years.

The Boxer rebellion was also defeated. It was an inwards xenophobic movement. The end result is 100 years later, China looks outward....the Boxer idea died.

The Chinese btw, were already independent, just backwards..

[nicky10013]

I won't quibble whether the the fighters of the philipine insurgency are the ones who gained independence 50 years later...or that the fighter of the Boxer rebellion....and so on...all of that is irrelevant. You made an erroneous claim about condition of war, how it was and how it is now. Those events listed prove your claim is fallicious.

And? So? How are the national ambitions of Prussia doing these days? When will Breton be free?

Ideas are the things that drive war, not war itself. If you don't crush the idea, then the idea of conflict continues. This is especially prescient today due to the fact that the people we're fighting aren't even fighting for a state which only reinforces that fact.

Your example of Prussia makes absolutely no sense. Prussia and the German states of Europe decided that they'd be better off together rather than apart. It became Germany. Prussia never fought to keep itself from joining Germany. Indeed, Prussia was the leading power in German unification. As for Breton's? I'm not really familiar but if the example is anything like Prussia, it doesn't matter anyways.

[M.Dancer]

Your example of Prussia makes absolutely no sense. Prussia and the German states of Europe decided that they'd be better off together rather than apart. It became Germany. Prussia never fought to keep itself from joining Germany. Indeed, Prussia was the leading power in German unification. As for Breton's? I'm not really familiar but if the example is anything like Prussia, it doesn't matter anyways.

You don't know European history then.

[nicky10013]

You don't know European history then.

Teach me then, why don't you? If you know so much then why the vague answer?

[nicky10013]

I should like to add that the Philippine insurgency failed, they accepted defeat and the US ruled the Islands in relative peace for 50 years.

The Boxer rebellion was also defeated. It was an inwards xenophobic movement. The end result is 100 years later, China looks outward....the Boxer idea died.

The Chinese btw, were already independent, just backwards..

If they were independent it wasn't really a rebellion, then. More of a conventional war. The Phillipines is independent. One could agrue that the Soviets ruled Poland peacefully for 40 years. Doesn't mean the people liked communism. Sorry. Doesn't hold up.

[M.Dancer]

Teach me then, why don't you? If you know so much then why the vague answer?

Prussia ceased to be after the victory of the Allies. Prussia was the seat of German militarism. It provided the bulk of the officer class of the Reich. Clauswitz was a Prussian. The master planner of the great war,von Schlieffen was a Prussian. One of the key formulators of Blitzkreig, was a Prussian. The Author of the German doctrine of armoured warfare, Heinz Guderian, was a Prussian.

You say ideas can't be killed.

Where is Prussia?

[M.Dancer]

If they were independent it wasn't really a rebellion

So you don't know about the Boxer Rebellion either?

[M.Dancer]

If they were independent it wasn't really a rebellion, then.

Well that's an interesting logical notion.

In 1869 Canada was independant. Therefore the Red River Rebellion wasn't a Rebellion.

Where is Manitoban independance today?

[nicky10013]

So you don't know about the Boxer Rebellion either?

From what I've read, it was a popular uprising against foreign intervention. Though it was put down, also from what I've read, it weakened the ruling Chinese government to the point that it was overthrown 11 years later. Though the foreign powers that intervened were victorious militarily, they also halted their attempt to colonize China.

Though militarily successful, sounds like in the end, the goals of the uprising were accomplished.

[nicky10013]

Well that's an interesting logical notion.

In 1869 Canada was independant. Therefore the Red River Rebellion wasn't a Rebellion.

Where is Manitoban independance today?

No, in the sense that if China was an independent nation fighting foreign powers, then it isn't really a rebellion but an actual war.

[nicky10013]

Well that's an interesting logical notion.

In 1869 Canada was independant. Therefore the Red River Rebellion wasn't a Rebellion.

Where is Manitoban independance today?

Ah, so the argument has gone from actual information to attempts at poking holes in my arguments by nitpicking about which words I may have mistakenly used. Fantastically academic.

[M.Dancer]

Ah, so the argument has gone from actual information to attempts at poking holes in my arguments by nitpicking about which words I may have mistakenly used. Fantastically academic.

Um...your defense is I have psychic powers and know when you use words mistakenly?

I am not "poking holes" in your arguments. I am driving panzers though massive breaches.

[M.Dancer]

No, in the sense that if China was an independent nation fighting foreign powers, then it isn't really a rebellion but an actual war.

Am I supposed to use my psychic powers here to, or do I need to explain the Boxer Rebellion to you?

[nicky10013]

Um...your defense is I have psychic powers and know when you use words mistakenly?

I am not "poking holes" in your arguments. I am driving panzers though massive breaches.

What breaches? You've gone from giving me long winded responses that really don't make any sense, such as Prussia, Thailand, Ireland etc. and have shrunk to simplisticly short "you don't know anything about European history" responses which really says, "I've got nothing more to say, so I'll just make this wide get called out on it."

Edited February 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Am I supposed to use my psychic powers here to, or do I need to explain the Boxer Rebellion to you?

I did. I made a mistake when used the word rebellion, but if you skipped over one of my previous responses either purposefully or not, so I'll just repost it.

From what I've read, it was a popular uprising against foreign intervention. Though it was put down, also from what I've read, it weakened the ruling Chinese government to the point that it was overthrown 11 years later. Though the foreign powers that intervened were victorious militarily, they also halted their attempt to colonize China.

Though militarily successful, sounds like in the end, the goals of the uprising were accomplished.

[M.Dancer]

What breaches? You've gone from giving me long winded responses that really don't make any sense, such as Prussia, Thailand, Ireland etc. and have shrunk to simplisticly short "you don't know anything about European history" responses which really says, "I've got nothing more to say, so I'll just make this wide get called out on it."

Well lets see.

You made two erroneous statements regarding Iraq. Reporting and the level of carnage.

You made an irrelevant statement regarding Poland, to which I counter with Prussia, which no longer exists or supplies the martial idealogy of germany.

You made several errorneous statements regarding the changed nature of warfare, to which I showed you that your statement is only true if you ignore history.

You call the Boxer uprising a "popular uprising against foreign intervention" and you call it a war, which of course goes against your notion that wars are only fought against uniformed armies. Popular uprisings are not uniformed armies.

[nicky10013]

Well lets see.

You made two erroneous statements regarding Iraq. Reporting and the level of carnage.

You made an irrelevant statement regarding Poland, to which I counter with Prussia, which no longer exists or supplies the martial idealogy of germany.

You made several errorneous statements regarding the changed nature of warfare, to which I showed you that your statement is only true if you ignore history.

You call the Boxer uprising a "popular uprising against foreign intervention" and you call it a war, which of course goes against your notion that wars are only fought against uniformed armies. Popular uprisings are not uniformed armies.

I was wrong about Iraq and I was wrong about the Boxer Rebellion being a war. That doesn't change the fact that Iraq has a terrible government and the aims of the rebellion actually succeeded. It's not that hard for me to admit my mistakes.

The changed nature of warfare simply isn't erroneous. These aren't my own personal beliefs, either. I recommended the Utility of Force by General Rupert Smith. His ideas make sense and I take him as the better expert on the issue. Are you prepared to say this man, who commanded military forces during the Gulf War, is simply wrong?

Poland has everything to do with the examples provided. You had these examples of all these failed uprisings but sometimes uprising fails. The point was that time and again they eventually succeed be it in 10 years or 50. Poland is the perfect example of failed uprisings but the people kept the idea of an independent Polish state alive and continued to work toward it and eventually they were successful. In the context of Thailand, Ireland etc. etc. etc. Poland is perfect. The fact that you can't understand it speaks to your inability to understand the argument as a whole. To assume that the lessons of today's warfare can be the same as the boxer rebellion is just not right. Under that assumption, fighting trench warfare would be just as good an idea as it was in 1914.

As for Prussia, the fact that you keep going on about it is just hilarious. If there is any example that doesn't fit, it's the notion of Prussia and why they don't exist as a state today. Since you can't keep up I'll dumb it down for you. Warfare is the extension of politics and ideas by other means. Some fight for statehood. Some fight to protect their nation state. Others fight for religion. The common denomenator is that there is an idea the people go to war for. Those ideas are supplied by a common people. The same can be said about the direction of the state not in war. Prussia ceased to be Prussia when it became Germany. However, that didn't matter to the people because the traditions of Prussia continued on in Imperial Germany under Bismarck. Furthermore, overnight it turned Germany into one of, if not the most powerful power in Europe overnight. In the end, no one rose up and fought because Prussians no longer saw themselves as Prussians, but a stronger and more powerful "German" (important as they actually spoke German) Empire.

[M.Dancer]

The changed nature of warfare simply isn't erroneous. These aren't my own personal beliefs, either. I recommended the Utility of Force by General Rupert Smith. His ideas make sense and I take him as the better expert on the issue. Are you prepared to say this man, who commanded military forces during the Gulf War, is simply wrong?

No but I will wager you misunderstand him.

Poland has everything to do with the examples provided. You had these examples of all these failed uprisings but sometimes uprising fails.

I won't quibble whether the the fighters of the philipine insurgency are the ones who gained independence 50 years later...or that the fighter of the Boxer rebellion....and so on...all of that is irrelevant.

Whether the uprisings failed,or succeded is irrelevant. They are simply there to show you that they wars we are fighting

now are not new things.

The point was that time and again they eventually succeed be it in 10 years or 50. Poland is the perfect example of failed uprisings but the people kept the idea of an independent Polish state alive and continued to work toward it and eventually they were successful.

Again, irrelevant. Some win, some lose.

In the context of Thailand, Ireland etc. etc. etc.

.

What does Thailand have to do with anything?

As for Prussia, the fact that you keep going on about it is just hilarious. If there is any example that doesn't fit, it's the notion of Prussia and why they don't exist as a state today.

The fact you don't understand it is also hillarious.

Keep repeating you can't kill an idea. Where is Prussia?

Warfare is the extension of politics and ideas by other means.

Do you know which Prussian that misquote originates from? And do you know what he really meant?

Prussia ceased to be Prussia when it became Germany.

Incorrect. It diodn't cease to be a state till the Nazis and more precisely, by the allies.

However, that didn't matter to the people because the traditions of Prussia continued on in Imperial Germany under Bismarck. Furthermore, overnight it turned Germany into one of, if not the most powerful power in Europe overnight. In the end, no one rose up and fought because Prussians no longer saw themselves as Prussians, but a stronger and more powerful "German" (important as they actually spoke German) Empire.

And where are these Prussian ideals and traditions today?

In the end, no one rose up and fought because Prussians no longer saw themselves as Prussians, but a stronger and more powerful "German" (important as they actually spoke German) Empire.

Another irrelevancy and also incorrect. They identified themselves as Bavarians stil do taday. For that matter, so do Austrians, who, also speak German.

The notion that ideas can't be killed is unsupported by history.

Edited February 9, 2010 by M.Dancer

[nicky10013]

No but I will wager you misunderstand him.

Spoken as though you've actually read it and know what he means. How ludicrous.

Whether the uprisings failed,or succeded is irrelevant. They are simply there to show you that they wars we are fighting

now are not new things.

No, whether they succeed immediately or over a period is instrumental. Yes, these wars aren't new, but the results that we want have proven only to be short term military victories, not long term success. We have to learn from history and actually learn that this may not be the right way to go.

Again, irrelevant. Some win, some lose.

Depends on the time frame. With time comes success for the little guy and defeat from the big

.

What does Thailand have to do with anything?

Excuse me, I meant the Phillipines.

The fact you don't understand it is also hillarious.

Keep repeating you can't kill an idea. Where is Prussia?

No one killed the idea of Prussia. It evolved into Pan-German Imperialism. This entire response supposes that nothing can change unless forced through some sort of force which is a ludicrously flawed notion.

Do you know which Prussian that misquote originates from? And do you know what he really meant?

It's not a misquote. I paraphrased. There's a difference. I wager I've read more Clauswitz, if you've read any at all so yeah, I do know he really meant by it.

Incorrect. It diodn't cease to be a state till the Nazis and more precisely, by the allies.

And where are these Prussian ideals and traditions today?

Things change. Deal with it.

Another irrelevancy and also incorrect. They identified themselves as Bavarians stil do taday. For that matter, so do Austrians, who, also speak German.

The notion that ideas can't be killed is unsupported by history.

If you will, illustrate which ideas have been forcibly destroyed by another power. None of the examples you've come up with stand up to even the slightest test.