When it eventually got going, the war started quite well. The 'shock and awe' tactic seemed to work.
That's because they acted according to what they were told to do. I've read a number of things from a number of sources that say that most of Saddam's forces had orders to not fight the American advance, but instead to change to civilian clothes, go underground to regroup, and start a guerilla campaign.
It was actually a smart tactical move.You'd think no one would know that better than Americans.
When faced with an opponent who:
- Has technical superiority
- Mobility superiority
- Logistical superiority
- Training superiority
- Firepower superiority
- Intelligence superiority[/list:u]
You don't stand and fight. You RUN. Then fight from the shadows. From the streets. From the alleyways. You nickel and dime them one and two at a time. You draw it out, wage a long, slow, protracted war of attrition.
A handful of even moderately-trained fighters with good tactical leadership can wage a guerilla war on an enemy that's superior in almost every way for a nearly indefinite period.
It's actually pretty easy. All you do is continue to harrass them and eventually they go away.
Form a panel. Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.
Heh, I hate to bring sci-fi into a political discussion, but in Peter F. Hamilton's awesome 'Reality Dysfunction' trilogy, they had one 'kingdom' whose rulers were given literally unlimited resources, with anything they could possibly wish for provided. The theory was that, in this case, they would have no reason to not act in the nations best interest - after all, they would have no reason to do something for a selfish reason since they could have anything they wanted anyway.
Even in this case, it would still be tough to keep the people in charge from becoming oppressive, but at least they would take ACTION.
Why not just make a 3/4 majority enough for a decision?
Power in the hands of one individual I have always thought unnecessary.
Personally, I think the executive branch would work better if it were a small governing panel acting through 3/4 agreement rather than one person.
It lessens the chances of... well, the shit we've had to put up with for the last six or seven presidents, for starters.
I think that would be acceptable, but you have to remember that as soon as you allow the decisions to be made by committee, that committee will inevitable increase in size, and the more people that have to be consulted and made to agree on a decision, the longer and less effective any decision made by that body will be.
I suppose if you could make a panel of ONLY those people you listed, and assure that it would never increase in size - by only allowing new members when old ones die/retire, and declare it simple majority (or perhaps 3/4, bt that would again drastically lengthen the time needed to make tough decisions), it MAY work.
But really, with a voting system, things would work this way - easy decisions would be make instantly, since everyone should be intelligent enough to see the way to go. The tougher the decisions get to make, the longer it would take to make them, while the more critical it would be to make them QUICKLY. This is why, inevitably, one person making these decisions would be the best, IF that one person could be guaranteed to act in the people's interest.
Perhaps if the group has a majority vote on who in that panel would make the decision each time a decision needed to be made, and there was a relatively short time limit on deliberations to vote, then this rule by panel could work. This way, it isn't always the same person making decisions, but the panel could effectively respond almost as quickly as if it were only one person.
The problem with that would be guaranteeing that the person is picked in a timely manner. Perhaps someone could be appointed from the panel to be the 'default' decider, and if the vote hadn't been decided by a certain time, they would make the decision?
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:Oh yeah! Tha's all fine and dandy until we disagree with you. Then you'll tell us to fuck off.
- Kryzec
- TheJudge
- Lacerda
- gorgeous_si[/list:u]
Actually, what I was thinking of was a random determination of the effective "head of the panel", chosen periodically. What do you think of that?
Quote from: DemosthenesThen we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:Oh yeah! Tha's all fine and dandy until we disagree with you. Then you'll tell us to fuck off.
- Kryzec
- TheJudge
- Lacerda
- gorgeous_si[/list:u]
lol
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:I watch a movie, and come back to find I'm foreign advisor to another country! Just another day in the life of gorgeous_si! So, how much does it pay? :twisted:
- Kryzec
- TheJudge
- Lacerda
- gorgeous_si[/list:u]
I want twice whatever you're paying him.
And he should get at least as much as me.
(HAR!)
I want twice whatever you're paying him.
*hands Lacerda two bottles of Labatt's*
Nice use of the word "panacea". :)
You know, there's a part of me that thinks that as well. That they're just that fricken blind. It's just that that prospect frightens me so much that I'm in denial about it, so let me have my pleasant little illusion, mmkay? :evil:
Lol. You know, I'm sure it's always looking simple when you're playing armchair quarterback like we always do, but I honestly think that I could hand-pick a dozen or so people that I do nothing but piss around with online like this to run this country and we wouldn't do any worse a job.
Just among HNers and teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) members I'd pick:Just for starters.
- DogStarMan
- Pbsaurus
- Ivan
- Vespertine
- BizB
- biggyfred
- Socrates
- Detta
- Banshee
- Law
- catwritr
- Joe Sixpack
- Xolik
- PeyoteCoyote
- Daria
- 7thSon
Form a panel. Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.
Just a bunch of regular folks. We could do it better than those 'tards could any day. Or if nothing else, at least not any worse, right?
I mean shit... we seem to be better-informed, if nothing else. A lot less prone to extremism of any kind. A lot more willing to listen to alternative solutions. Probably quite a bit less antagonistic.
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:The reason I think we could do AT LEAST AS GOOD a job as the Bush administration is because everybody I listed (plus a bunch I didn't) have one main thing in common:
- Kryzec
- TheJudge
- Lacerda
- gorgeous_si
The capacity for rational thought. Opinions based on reason rather than dogmatic rhetoric.
That alone could be enough to steer things back onto a course more closely resembling "sane" than anything this country's been on in decades.
Nice use of the word "panacea". :)HEY! Who you callin' "less antagonistic"?!?[/list][/list]
You know, there's a part of me that thinks that as well. That they're just that fricken blind. It's just that that prospect frightens me so much that I'm in denial about it, so let me have my pleasant little illusion, mmkay? :evil:
Lol. You know, I'm sure it's always looking simple when you're playing armchair quarterback like we always do, but I honestly think that I could hand-pick a dozen or so people that I do nothing but piss around with online like this to run this country and we wouldn't do any worse a job.
Just among HNers and teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) members I'd pick:
- DogStarMan
- Pbsaurus
- Ivan
- Vespertine
- BizB
- biggyfred
- Socrates
- Detta
- Banshee
- Law
- catwritr
- Joe Sixpack
- Xolik
- PeyoteCoyote
- Daria
- 7thSon[/list:u]Just for starters.
Form a panel. Make no decisions without discussing them thoroughly among ourselves, with everyone allowed to say what's on their mind about it however they like.
Just a bunch of regular folks. We could do it better than those 'tards could any day. Or if nothing else, at least not any worse, right?
I mean shit... we seem to be better-informed, if nothing else. A lot less prone to extremism of any kind. A lot more willing to listen to alternative solutions. Probably quite a bit less antagonistic.
Then we could also form a foreign advisory panel made up of:
- Kryzec
- TheJudge
- Lacerda
- gorgeous_si[/list:u]
The reason I think we could do AT LEAST AS GOOD a job as the Bush administration is because everybody I listed (plus a bunch I didn't) have one main thing in common:
The capacity for rational thought. Opinions based on reason rather than dogmatic rhetoric.
That alone could be enough to steer things back onto a course more closely resembling "sane" than anything this country's been on in decades.
I'm glad to see I'm on the list, or I'd've had to go on a mindless antagonistic rampage.
Kryzec and Cat in the same 7.5 year year old thread, on the same day!? What the fuck is going on here? Did we start the takeover and nobody told me!!!??
Heya Vespertine! Good to see ya! Sorry I can't give you straight answers about whats going on. You have to take those up with Cat.
:w: