| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/27 |
| 2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47857 Activity:moderate |
8/31 Why'd you trash my HUMAN WEAPON thread but you kept the
one about the chick in Unit I with 32DDD tits?
\_ They do not get that pig wihtout significant
\_ They do not get that big without significant
pork action.
\_ French martial arts look hilarious. "When you are hit
in leg, do not look at your leg. You are not hurting
in your leg, only your heart."
\_ This is reflected in their "French military victory" records. :-)
\_ Ignoring the Maginot Line, the french actually have an
\_ Ignoring the Maginot Line, the French actually have an
incredible history of military victories. They lost
so badly and quickly in WW2 because all of their fighting
men died horrible deaths in Verdun.
Anyway Americans who go on and on about French 'surrender
monkeys' piss me off, there would be no America without
French military support in the late 1700s. The French
spent so much money on America that the French people got
pissed and executed their monarchy.
\_ I know how to settle this debate: Let's just invade
France!! They got weapon of mass destructions, and they
host terrorist... perfect. what are better way to find
out how good they fight by FIGHTING them?
\_ 1700s: true. WW2 lost due to WW1: false. The Germans
lost a huge number of men in WW1 also, so apples to apples
the French got their asses handed to them in WW2 because
their generals were *stupid* and still trying to fight
WW1 with their static fortress which didn't even cover
their entire border to the coast leading to the well
known end-run around it straight to Paris. And btw, the
French in WW1 were so stupid, they had a revolt on the
line which only ended when a number of revolt leaders
stepped up to be executed for the revolt in exchange for
the generals promising to stop being such jackasses.
\- you may wish to read:
http://tinyurl.com/22bxm9
http://tinyurl.com/yr8pd4
[the first book pretty much grew out of a UCB PhD
thesis].
Also Twenty Years Crisis/EH Carr is very good but on
a slightly different matter. These are all standard.
\_ I don't see how either of these books refutes what
I had to say about France. Or are you just suggesting
further reading I might find interesting? In that
case the second link does look interesting, the first
much less so. Thanks for the links.
\- i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.
but poltical scientists talk about ww1, ww2,
the cold war etc in different terms than historians
and these are two "standard works" in this area.
the carr book is just a good read, as is "man
the state and war" [which also touches on ww1 as
test case for a certain theory, but that is really
a theory of IR book, not a book about 20th cent
events, but is a major classic. on a trivia note:
the author of MSW is an important emeritus ucb
prof. the author of link #1 did his phd under him.
after he retired from ucb, the author of #2 link
invited him to teach an columbia]. BTW, if you are
deeply interested in the French military history
of the early 20th cent, you might also look at this:
http://tinyurl.com/2h6fas
Beth Kier is also not unattractive, although her
book is not of the stature of the ones above (i
havent read all of this one. it's a little more
airy-fairy).
Beth Kier I believe did her phd under the link #2
author and is not unattractive, although this book
is not of the stature of the ones above (i havent
read all of this one. it's a little more airy-fairy) |
| 5/27 |
|
| tinyurl.com/22bxm9 -> www.amazon.com/Sources-Military-Doctrine-Britain-Security/dp/0801494273/ com Books Delivers, our monthly subscription e-mail newsletters. Discover new releases in your favorite categories, popular pre-orders and bestsellers, exclusive author interviews and podcasts, special sales, and more. Prime members will also receive a $20 promotional certificate to be used for a future purchase. Why Organizational Theory Does Not Explain Military Doctrine, July 28, 1999 Reviewer: A reader Barry Posen's work is a comparison of 33 hypotheses drawn from organizational theory and balance of power theory. The test of these hypotheses is the military strategy of interwar France, Germany and Great Britain. While Posen's work has great explanatory value for the formation of military doctrine, what it does in actuality is refute the richness of organizational theory for explaining the sources of military doctrine. The problem is that Posen did not seemingly intend to refute organizational theory. The book offers a well balanced response to the work of Jack Snyder on the ideology of offensive military strategy. I would highly encourage graduate students and facutly of international relations and military science to read this work. Great Read, February 26, 2000 Reviewer: A reader Posen's reasoning is lucid and his writing is a pleasure to read. Usually identified as part of the Waltzian or neorealist school of thought in international relations, Posen argues for the primacy of structural factors in explaining unit-level outcomes (in this case, military doctrine). One thing he does not address is potential influence of another unit-level characterisitic, regime type, in determining military doctrine. But overall, an ambitious and cleanly laid out argument. |
| tinyurl.com/yr8pd4 -> www.amazon.com/Ideology-Offensive-Military-Decision-Disasters/dp/0801482445/ com Books Delivers, our monthly subscription e-mail newsletters. Discover new releases in your favorite categories, popular pre-orders and bestsellers, exclusive author interviews and podcasts, special sales, and more. Prime members will also receive a $20 promotional certificate to be used for a future purchase. learn more) First Sentence: All of the major continental powers entered World War I with offensive strategies; all suffered huge strategic costs when, predictably, their offensives failed to achieve their ambitious aims. The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914 (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) (Hardcover) Essentially, this book argues that:: the greater that military power and resources are pursued under the belief of military defense - the greater the propensity for military resources to be used offensively. Military power is one of the primary sources of national power. For many countries, military power has in essence become a national resource. Yet today, almost every country with significant military resources claims that its military power is pursued strictly for defensive purposes only. However, despite these claims of military defensiveness, most countries of significant world power have developed an inherent "offensive bias" within their military doctrines and organizational structures. Hence, the old maxim that the best defense is a good offense' is taken quite literally by world power militaries - much more so than John Q Public realizes. This book explores this innate propensity within strong military cultures for an "ideology of the offensive". When this innate, military offensive bias is taken to the extreme, political efforts can be abandoned in lieu of an offensive first-strike capability under the sincere belief (not guise) that such offensive first-strikes are necessary in order to take advantage of strategic windows of opportunity'. Hence a military first-strike offensive attack is literally pursued in the name of military defense'. For any simple, competent, military analysis will reveal that this book quite aptly describes the recent kinetic energy of military power as exercised by the Bush Administration against Saddam Hussein / Iraq. Appropriately, this is book does not present any value judgement as to whether or not such offensive wars in the name of defense are morally or politically good or bad. Rather, this book presents an operational judgement of what inherently takes place in the generation of war for the pursuit of peace. What makes this book so timely in today's world affairs is the recent Bush Administration decision to pursue an offensive war in the name of defense against Saddam Hussein / Iraq. The United States has long professed (and deeply believed) that its military power is strictly for defensive purposes only. And under the umbrella of this deep belief, in cannot be denied that the current Bush Administration has actively pursued a totally new US military doctine - offensive war in the name of defense - which has resulted in the US occupation of Iraq. This analysis is not presented as a value judgement as to whether or not this recent US offensive against Iraq war is morally or politically good or bad. However, it cannot be denied that such recent military offensive actions by the United States will forever change world perception, opinion and concern about how the United States may exercise its vast technologically advanced military power in the future. And this world perception, opinion and concern about the exercise of US military power will undoubtedly affect world politics. More importantly, the political nuances of this recent US offensive first-strike war against Iraq present even more anecdotal, high quality evidence that this military theory as presented by the author (Jack Snyder) is both timeless and highly credible in understanding the nature of war. As a senior military officer of more than 27 years active duty, I strongly believe that this book is a must' for any serious student of war (especially against the paradigm of war as a continuation of policy by other means). |
| tinyurl.com/2h6fas -> www.amazon.com/Imagining-War-Elizabeth-Kier/dp/0691005311 com Books Delivers, our monthly subscription e-mail newsletters. Discover new releases in your favorite categories, popular pre-orders and bestsellers, exclusive author interviews and podcasts, special sales, and more. Editorial Reviews Review Robert A Doughty American Political Science Review : Kier's book is a welcome and important addition to the growing body of literature concerned with doctrine. The high quality of her work reflects not only a keen understanding of the of the doctrinal process but also a willingness to investigate the archival materials essential for such an understanding. learn more) First Sentence: MANY SCHOLARS have sought to understand the origins of, and more frequently, the barriers to doctrinal change in the military. Political Science and International Relations Find books matching ALL checked subjects ie, each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ... CliC's stylish, magnetic front connection reading glasses. Reach for them hanging around your neck, click the magnets together over your nose, and start reading. alli, the first FDA-approved over-the-counter pill for weight loss. It blocks 25% of the fat you eat and can increase your results by as much as 50%. |