Hi, Lee Lofaso!   
   I read your message from  05.08.2013 00:44   
   about Clandestine activity is a holy cow of democracy.   
      
    BK>>> All true, and irrelevant. Any state that wants that control will   
    BK>>> develop the technology to give it that control. The only answer   
    BK>>> is to develop an electorate that will kick out any government   
    BK>>> that tries to gain that much control. Dictatorships will try, and   
    BK>>> all that will stop them is their inability to do so, or a   
    BK>>> populous that will overthrow them.   
      
    ak>> Such things have been very possible until technology was not too   
    ak>> high. It is like Vietnam war - the victorious Vietnamese   
    ak>> resistance had sense only when American technology to kill and spy   
    ak>> was not at a very high level. The Vietnamese were able to defend   
    ak>> themselves and kick out the Americans.   
      
    LL> You've got it all wrong. The Americans won the war, not the   
    LL> Vietnamese. That is why the Vietnamese call it The American War,   
    LL> not The Vietnamese War. However, I must clarify a few things about   
    LL> the war that you may not be aware of -   
      
    LL> After the Americans won the war, the South Vietnamese Army went on   
    LL> to lose it. How did the SVA manage that? It is really quite easy to   
    LL> understand. The SVA were trained by the French, and the SVA   
    LL> officers had lots of American money. When their brethren from the   
    LL> North Vietnamese Army arrived, the privates in the SVA fled into   
    LL> the hills without firing a shot, and the officers in the SVA paid   
    LL> boat owners to take them to Hong Kong (and other exotic   
    LL> destinations). Of course, the high command in the SVA had more   
    LL> American money than everybody else and were able to buy a plane   
    LL> ticket to America.   
      
      ;=) Well, well, who doubts around the world that American history   
   books tell that the Vietnam war was victorious for the US? Propaganda   
   doesn't allow the opposite, especially if the opposite is humiliating.   
      
      But in this case the USSR had won the Afghan war, too. The USSR had   
   won the war, victoriously left the country, and Afghan government   
   forces, then, shamefully lost everything, fighting with the Taliban   
   resistance.   
      
      
    AK>> And such a scenario will be impossible in the near future, when   
    AK>> the US technology to kill will be like an army of Terminators.   
      
    LL> High tech breaks down easily, and in many cases does not work at   
    LL> all. Not only that, but low tech can often get the job done twice   
    LL> as fast, with minimal time needed to learn. Americans thought they   
    LL> could take over and subdue the people of Afghanistan in a matter of   
    LL> weeks. Ditto with the invasion of Iraq. However, even with the best   
    LL> equipped and best trained army in the world, the American military   
    LL> was unable to truly conquer either the people of Afghanistan or the   
    LL> people of Iraq. Why? Because when Americans are finished doing what   
    LL> they do, Americans go home, while the people in those countries   
    LL> never leave.   
      
      Victory -- is a situation when an invading side gets what it wanted   
   before the invasion. We know what the US declared before each invasion.   
   The US invaded into Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden, the US invaded in   
   Iraq to destroy its stockpiles of weapon of mass destruction. The US had   
   killed hundreds of thousand of people; but has it got what it wanted   
   before the war? No, of course, because Bin Laden moved to Pakistan in   
   2001, and there were no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. The   
   situation is not victorious, but sick and crazy. Just as the current   
   situation at the territories occupied by the Americans during those   
   invasions.   
      
      
    ak>> Is is a very wrong idea to suppose that special forces, secret   
    ak>> services are consisted of usual people, and, therefore, they will   
    ak>> never wring people's hands. In reality, such forces are mostly   
    ak>> amoral, they are proud of their discipline and of their readiness   
    ak>> to carry out any orders. They give an oath and they must obey. In   
    ak>> addition, military people as a rule are not people of high   
    ak>> intellect. Such people are not interested in politics, they easily   
    ak>> can be persuaded that they do right things and save the country,   
    ak>> whereas they actually oppress it. In Russia now, millions of   
    ak>> strong, young, ignorant people are working in special forces   
    ak>> (OMON), police - and it is very dangerous for democracy, because   
    ak>> any public movement can be suppressed easily.   
      
    LL> Soldiering is an honorable profession. Soldiers are not amoral, but   
    LL> in a way must do their jobs in an amoral manner. I did not say   
    LL> immoral. When inducted in the army, a soldier has to be taught to   
    LL> kill - to do something totally against his/her true nature. The   
    LL> soldier is sent off to war, to kill others. A most reprehensible   
    LL> thought. When the soldier returns home, he/she often has no help or   
    LL> support from his/her (military) family. The former soldier is left   
    LL> to defend for himself/herself a way of life he/she has long   
    LL> forgotten.   
      
      First of all, I told of a host of servicemen whose task is to   
   suppress popular meetings and movements. To suppress not only by tear   
   gas and buttons, but also by spying on their own people. To obey orders   
   without thinking is their main danger for democracy. The less such   
   people the better. Especially if such people are amoral, high educated   
   specialists for spying.   
      
      
      
    AK>> In short, I want to say that in future, an effective people's   
    AK>> resistance can be as impossible as Vietnamese resistance if   
    AK>> Vietnam war would happen in future.   
      
    LL> No way Vietnam war can happen in future. No more French to train   
    LL> the Vietnamese privates. French too old for that sort of thing. No   
    LL> more American money to pay the Vietnamese officers. Americans have   
    LL> enough problems paying their own bills.   
      
      It was an allegory, I repeat it. I tried to explain why resistanse in   
   high tech future will be doomed to defeat. That is why we should not   
   use this high technology to spy on everyone now.   
      
      
    AK>> Dictatorship is possible without any dictator. A group of people   
    AK>> can fetch power and do with the country what they want.   
      
    LL> The only true dictatorship possible is a benevolent dictatorship.   
    LL> All other dictatorsips are government by committee.   
      
      It is not important if people are dictated by one person or a group.   
   It is dictatorship anyway.   
      
   Bye, Lee!   
   Alexander Koryagin   
   fido7.debate 2013   
   --- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds   
    * Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)