Posted August 18, 2014
cont
If you somehow actually manage to see it so extra-naive-simplifying way - well, you surely could do better after youll do some research work on a subject. And no, surely not everything there is "dark magic", but if youll concentrate on the stuff you started to initially deny - "invasion" (e.g. moving of personnel and armor through artificial border), you have to go to conclusion what it is in that narrow case. Or, worse, what "artificial construct" Russia is so artificial, so it cannot handle and control own military, so local commanders or simply random people can move anything military they have in theyr disposal anywhere they want, and use it anyway they feel to. And central government unable\dont want\dont care to control them. In this case it lead to a way more urgent situation, as you probably should see.
Again, where have I defended anything Russia is doing or has been accused of doing? It's not even the point I was making. It's simply that nations exist for a reason, because they share a common identity, culture, language or whatnot, they have real national unity and it would be nigh impossible to make them start killing each other without a very good reason. If the idea of nationality means nothing and is just some lines on a map, well you shouldn't surprised when it doesn't work in reality.
You're not defended them (hm, ok), you denied some statement, then came with another one, what should be used instead, despite the facts, then started to discuss some distant global ideas about "artifitial, real, etc". Up to surreal idea of "nations, what have a reason, because they share something", some new word in social sciences for sure. France have a nation, right? French one. What is reason of French nation? French nation in 9, 13, 17, 20 centuries share a "common identity, culture, language or whatnot". Or they are different nations? What French nation is closer to French_Nation_Reason, from 13 century, what is closer to some modern Africa states than to modern one, or modern one, what looks much more America, than old-school (say Loui's ) France? But stop, how come it deny some certain invasion, oh?
"but the idea that they can just make people go out of their homes, get guns and start fighting and risking their lives". No, idea there was slightly different. You come with a mobile group, neutralize possible opposition, and then deliver the guns to ones, who will decide to join your cause. If you send mobile groups from abroad - it makes rather a difference there.
Again, you use big phrases but you still can't explain to me why a person is going to go out and fight and possibly die if they don't have a good reason for doing so. Do Russians have mind-control rays now?
Err, you want me to describe you a whole aspect of human behavior in few lines? People wrote a papers on it, and send them to journals usually, not to forums. In short people can do it for illusions, money, theyr life, to have a fun from, ideals etc. But stop, it cant be news for you, right? I described there the actual way of infiltration on some certain land spot in some certain land, its not an universal way. But we're here about certain case, again.
If you went to mind experiment, lets continue that. Suppose what you, and your neighbors indeed was able to resist a luring opportunity, but 3 families of Polish emigrees next street - not. Moreother, what some drug smugglers also picked them, and joined Poles-next-street cause. Assuming PAF involvement stated here from start, question here is - would you call it Australian civil war, in case of some clashes to go, especially if theyll be able to take an airfield in some initial confusion, so PAF planes can land there with volunteer troops and cargo?
This is the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
Then you should'nt try to go into mind experiments yet. Simply not your.
If you somehow actually manage to see it so extra-naive-simplifying way - well, you surely could do better after youll do some research work on a subject. And no, surely not everything there is "dark magic", but if youll concentrate on the stuff you started to initially deny - "invasion" (e.g. moving of personnel and armor through artificial border), you have to go to conclusion what it is in that narrow case. Or, worse, what "artificial construct" Russia is so artificial, so it cannot handle and control own military, so local commanders or simply random people can move anything military they have in theyr disposal anywhere they want, and use it anyway they feel to. And central government unable\dont want\dont care to control them. In this case it lead to a way more urgent situation, as you probably should see.
Again, where have I defended anything Russia is doing or has been accused of doing? It's not even the point I was making. It's simply that nations exist for a reason, because they share a common identity, culture, language or whatnot, they have real national unity and it would be nigh impossible to make them start killing each other without a very good reason. If the idea of nationality means nothing and is just some lines on a map, well you shouldn't surprised when it doesn't work in reality.
You're not defended them (hm, ok), you denied some statement, then came with another one, what should be used instead, despite the facts, then started to discuss some distant global ideas about "artifitial, real, etc". Up to surreal idea of "nations, what have a reason, because they share something", some new word in social sciences for sure. France have a nation, right? French one. What is reason of French nation? French nation in 9, 13, 17, 20 centuries share a "common identity, culture, language or whatnot". Or they are different nations? What French nation is closer to French_Nation_Reason, from 13 century, what is closer to some modern Africa states than to modern one, or modern one, what looks much more America, than old-school (say Loui's ) France? But stop, how come it deny some certain invasion, oh?
"but the idea that they can just make people go out of their homes, get guns and start fighting and risking their lives". No, idea there was slightly different. You come with a mobile group, neutralize possible opposition, and then deliver the guns to ones, who will decide to join your cause. If you send mobile groups from abroad - it makes rather a difference there.
Again, you use big phrases but you still can't explain to me why a person is going to go out and fight and possibly die if they don't have a good reason for doing so. Do Russians have mind-control rays now?
Err, you want me to describe you a whole aspect of human behavior in few lines? People wrote a papers on it, and send them to journals usually, not to forums. In short people can do it for illusions, money, theyr life, to have a fun from, ideals etc. But stop, it cant be news for you, right? I described there the actual way of infiltration on some certain land spot in some certain land, its not an universal way. But we're here about certain case, again.
If you went to mind experiment, lets continue that. Suppose what you, and your neighbors indeed was able to resist a luring opportunity, but 3 families of Polish emigrees next street - not. Moreother, what some drug smugglers also picked them, and joined Poles-next-street cause. Assuming PAF involvement stated here from start, question here is - would you call it Australian civil war, in case of some clashes to go, especially if theyll be able to take an airfield in some initial confusion, so PAF planes can land there with volunteer troops and cargo?
This is the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
Then you should'nt try to go into mind experiments yet. Simply not your.
Post edited August 18, 2014 by DarzaR
