Posts tagged ‘Colombia’

September 25, 2018

Secret Sex Service

by Firepower

Silly Roosh – He Had To Pay His Own Expenses

Law enforcement types with privileges to carry guns, VAST powers of intimidation (harshly used on Ted Nugent) and arrest over American citizens are hypocritical disgraces when breaking laws punishable in America.

Whores are legal in Colombia – great.

Would Armed SS be excused if they want to have sex with 13-year-old Colombian whores? Do cocaine with said whores on Colombian soil? In Obama-Xlinton World, you bet. The interwebz is full of now grown-up kids, raised on Clintonian Scandal, parroting empty-headed drivel that shrugs at decadence.

The Big Problem these shallow thinkers fail to grasp: These Praetorian Guard, Armed SS are the VERY jackbooted government fascists who’d be the FIRST to ….

read more »

April 1, 2013

Dealing with Fundamental Disagreements in Strategy

by doomdigit

A really classical example of this art of estimating a situation psychologically was shown in the year 1917 by a brigade commander.  This General said, “Each of our three regimental commanders must be handled differently.  Colonel “A” does not want an order.  He wants to do everything himself, and he always does well.  Colonel “B” executes every order, but has no initiative.  Colonel “C” opposes everything he is told to do and wants to do the contrary.

A few days later the troops confronted a well-entrenched enemy whose position would have to be attacked.  The General issued the following individual orders:

To Colonel “A” (who wants to do everything himself):

“My dear Colonel “A,” I think we will attack.  Your regiment will have to carry the burden of the attack.  I have, however, selected you for this reason.  The boundaries of your regiment are so and so.  Attack at X hour.  I don’t have to tell you anything more.”

To Colonel “C” (who opposes everything):

“We have me a very strong enemy.  I am afraid we will not be able to attack with the forces at our disposal.”

“Oh, General, certainly we will attack.  Just give my regiment the time of attack and you will see that we are successful,” replied Colonel “C.”

“Go, then, we will try it,” said the General giving him the order for the attack, which he had prepared some time previously.

To Colonel “B” ( who must have detailed orders) the attack order was merely sent with additional details.

All three regiments attacked splendidly.

Captain Adolf Von Schell, Battle Leadership (Quantico: The Marine Corps Association, 2007), 11-12.

This episode of Locked Up Abroad seems like the perfect analogy for our current situation.  In case people do not have the time or interest in watching the episode (~45 minutes) I will generally describe (spoil) it.  Tourists interested in visiting the Lost City are kidnapped by a group masquerading as the Colombian Army.  In this episode you see three general categories of people:

  1. those with foresight and wisdom who see danger ahead and act,
  2. those who are  initially deceived or scared but try to resist (not always in an intelligent, effective manner), and
  3. those who try to work with the system, playing by its rules hoping to survive.

This episode is amusing because as it turns out, nothing really bad happens to these three groups.  In the end, all of them survive and are released.  What I want to focus on, though, is how these three groups act, because they are all opposed to each other.  In any movement you will see these three groups.  There are, of course, sub groups, and probably many other groups, but the conflict between these groups is more important than the number.

The conflict between these groups exists because there are fundamental differences in strategy.  In “Colombian Kidnap” the first group is unable to convince others of the danger and goes its own way because it knows it must act immediately.  The second group misses the opportune time for resistance and then engages in what seems like reckless behavior, but may actually have been based on very keen perception.  The third group is irritated with the second because of the danger it possibly poses to them, because it is banking on being good little hostages and following all the rules.  What intrigued me was how the third group did not rat on the second group when it made its attempted escape.

Is it possible to convince people in our situation to live and let live?  Obviously there are limits on this, but often people get irritated over trivial matter and decided to take their ball home so no one else can play.  We are all going to fall in different strategic camps, and the sad reality is that you are not going to convince everyone that you are right.  The CIA and the KGB had the Gavrilov Channel, and I am wondering if it is possible to establish something like that so people can at least attempt to work together on some matters despite their differences.

%d bloggers like this: