Hong Kong Protesters Keep Up the Pressure(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Hong Kong Protesters Keep Up the Pressure
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-protesters-keep-up-the-pressure-11561113839?mod=rsswn
43 comments
Some pro-beijing opinions from a westerner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCokRDKR89c
It’ll be an unfair fight of China brings troops into this.
Wouldn’t guerilla warfare in the alleys and tight buildings be an absolute nightmare
Guerrilla warfare relies on willingness to abide by the laws of armed conflict for its effectiveness. If you’re willing to kill everyone and the rebellious population realises it you win. See Chechnya. Also, Hong Kong is a city. In cities guerrilla warfare just plain doesn’t work. If it did the Israelis would not have been able to occupy the Gaza Strip and West Bank for decades. This without the willingness to disregard international law that harvesting Falun Gong organs or keeping millions in concentration camps in Xinjiang shows the CCP very obviously has.
Guerrilla warfare only works against weak states or strong ones that will follow international law. The British won the Boer war. The PLA has more men and Hong Kong is a lot smaller than South Africa or even just the Orange after State. Hong Kong cannot win a guerrilla war.
Guerrilla warfare only works against weak states or strong ones that will follow international law. The British won the Boer war. The PLA has more men and Hong Kong is a lot smaller than South Africa or even just the Orange after State. Hong Kong cannot win a guerrilla war.
Total BS. Irish War of Independence is a good example of guerrilla warfare beating the oppressor, and the British did not subscribe to 'laws of armed conflict' in the slightest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1920)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Cork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1920)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Cork
The British had just finished WWI, they were broke and they had narrowly avoided having a civil war over granting Irish Home Rule by virtue of WWI breaking out[1]. If they had been willing to follow the same tactics in Ireland as they had in South Africa only 20 years before they’d have won. Armed irregulars cannot win against a well trained regular army that has massive superiority in terms of training, discipline and logistics if the regular army is willing to kill everyone and the irregulars know that.
People are generally not willing to die when they know defeat is certain if life is an option. If the British had been willing to be as brutal as Cromwell to retain Ireland they’d have won. They weren’t.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident
People are generally not willing to die when they know defeat is certain if life is an option. If the British had been willing to be as brutal as Cromwell to retain Ireland they’d have won. They weren’t.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_incident
[deleted]
When pondering guerilla resistance it should be noted that Hong Kong is not Singapore - they have no army or any military trained population. There's just angry civilians.
There won't be any guerilla resistance in Hong Kong in the case of an armed intervention.
There won't be any guerilla resistance in Hong Kong in the case of an armed intervention.
> If you’re willing to kill everyone and the rebellious population realises it you win.
Would the Vietnam war not be a counterexample of this?
Would the Vietnam war not be a counterexample of this?
I'm of the opinion America lost that conflict and it was so terrible because officials chose to be restrained in overt military action, out of fear of direct conflict with the Soviet Union, and at the same time unrestrained in covert action. It was a poisonous mix that achieve nothing but years of death and misery; that said a full scale push by America could have spiraled into nuclear war.
The US was emphatically not willing to kill everyone in North Vietnam. Not even close.
Interesting. My view must have been tainted by Oliver Stone.
Because I care about having true opinions, I completely avoid film makers that in the process of producing and sustaining strong emotions in their audience rely heavily on beliefs about the real world without caring much whether those beliefs are true or false. Oliver Stone is one of those film makers. (I never saw any of his films. It was possible to learn enough about them to know I wanted to avoid them by watching a few trailers and reading a review or two.)
I prefer for my filmed entertainment to be completely fictional rather than to try to "teach" me about reality. When I want to refine my understanding of reality, I usually read nonfiction. It is too easy for filmed entertainment to "hack my brain".
Anyway, US bombers were forbidden to drop bombs within 15 miles or so of Haiphong harbor, probably because Russian ships were known to visit there regularly. Hanoi was also off limits for the vast majority of bombing missions. The directives forbidding these things came right from the top, i.e., from LBJ. In fact, LBJ would involve himself in the planning of individual missions, giving instructions such as approach this target from this direction because if you go in this direction, you fly over a school.
I'm not saying US soldiers and US pilots never committed atrocities in Vietnam, but the leaders of the US war effort were certainly never unrestricted in their willingness to kill North Vietnamese (although they probably would've chosen to kill every North Vietnamese communist combatant if there were a way to do that without killing any noncombatants). Consequently, it would've been rational for the US to continue the war effort in Vietnam even after it became obvious the war was unwinnable.
George Friedman says that the reason the US spent so much blood and treasure in Vietnam was . . . Charles de Gaulle. When de Gaulle was the leader of France, he was telling the other Western European nations that the US could not be relied on to come to the aid of Western Europe if the Soviets attacked. So, the US stayed in Vietnam to show Europe that a US military guarantee means something. Note that in order to achieve that goal, it was not necessary for the US to win the Vietnam war, only for it to try to hard enough and long enough. In other words, it was rational for the US to continue the war effort even after everyone realized that the US was unable to win the war (because the real goal was not to save South Vietnam from communism, it was to save Western Europe from communism).
The leaders of the US war effort certainly did not explain this reasoning in an effective way however to the American people -- maybe because there was no way to do so without severely demoralizing US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
I prefer for my filmed entertainment to be completely fictional rather than to try to "teach" me about reality. When I want to refine my understanding of reality, I usually read nonfiction. It is too easy for filmed entertainment to "hack my brain".
Anyway, US bombers were forbidden to drop bombs within 15 miles or so of Haiphong harbor, probably because Russian ships were known to visit there regularly. Hanoi was also off limits for the vast majority of bombing missions. The directives forbidding these things came right from the top, i.e., from LBJ. In fact, LBJ would involve himself in the planning of individual missions, giving instructions such as approach this target from this direction because if you go in this direction, you fly over a school.
I'm not saying US soldiers and US pilots never committed atrocities in Vietnam, but the leaders of the US war effort were certainly never unrestricted in their willingness to kill North Vietnamese (although they probably would've chosen to kill every North Vietnamese communist combatant if there were a way to do that without killing any noncombatants). Consequently, it would've been rational for the US to continue the war effort in Vietnam even after it became obvious the war was unwinnable.
George Friedman says that the reason the US spent so much blood and treasure in Vietnam was . . . Charles de Gaulle. When de Gaulle was the leader of France, he was telling the other Western European nations that the US could not be relied on to come to the aid of Western Europe if the Soviets attacked. So, the US stayed in Vietnam to show Europe that a US military guarantee means something. Note that in order to achieve that goal, it was not necessary for the US to win the Vietnam war, only for it to try to hard enough and long enough. In other words, it was rational for the US to continue the war effort even after everyone realized that the US was unable to win the war (because the real goal was not to save South Vietnam from communism, it was to save Western Europe from communism).
The leaders of the US war effort certainly did not explain this reasoning in an effective way however to the American people -- maybe because there was no way to do so without severely demoralizing US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
the result then basically being that they just end up destroying what they sought...
> they just end up destroying what they sought
Cities are people, not buildings. This underlines the Swiss defense strategy, for instance [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerlan...
Cities are people, not buildings. This underlines the Swiss defense strategy, for instance [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_%28Switzerlan...
The Chinese government likely cares more about the capital contained and produced in HK, which they would ruin if they were to bust up the place.
They don’t only seek to incorporate HK but also as important or moreso to quash what they see as an incompatible political system.
If Yellow Vests movement taught us anything, is that you can ignore protests long term, even in the face of daily car fires.
At least until the next election. Where the next guy will make a ton of promises to fix things and then once the shine of a new politician wears off and the lack of actual results become obvious, it’s time for a new politician to fix things!
I also wouldn’t use France for an analogy here. They protest over literally everything. The politicians there must learn quickly how to ignore them.
This doesn’t happened often in Hong Kong, or most countries for that matter. But most countries aren’t facing such a dire future as HK. The Yellow Jacket people, while I support them, have no hardship comparable to facing extradition to China for political wrongthink.
I also wouldn’t use France for an analogy here. They protest over literally everything. The politicians there must learn quickly how to ignore them.
This doesn’t happened often in Hong Kong, or most countries for that matter. But most countries aren’t facing such a dire future as HK. The Yellow Jacket people, while I support them, have no hardship comparable to facing extradition to China for political wrongthink.
I also wouldn’t use France for an analogy here. They protest over literally everything. The politicians there must learn quickly how to ignore them.
Sounds like some sites like YouTube should take a look at how politicians in France cope with protesters.
Sounds like some sites like YouTube should take a look at how politicians in France cope with protesters.
No you can't. However strong the dictatorship is. Hong Kong protest is 2million out of 7million. If you had the same proportions in France, you'd have 20millions.
At 20m in France, the president will probably resign in 2-3 days. If not from the street pressure, then from his allies pressure.
At 20m in France, the president will probably resign in 2-3 days. If not from the street pressure, then from his allies pressure.
> If Yellow Vests movement taught us anything, is that you can ignore protests long term, even in the face of daily car fires.
Which should be obvious from passive observation and history, but a whole generation of people have been told they matter, and that their form of government is the inclusive ideal that supports that outcome.
Which should be obvious from passive observation and history, but a whole generation of people have been told they matter, and that their form of government is the inclusive ideal that supports that outcome.
The HK protesters have a specific addressable goal.
I take it you are not familiar with the Arab Spring protests?
The failed democratic revolutions that lead to massive loss of life in the countries where they fizzled out (Egypt), hundreds of thousands of deaths where the US supported them (Syria, Libya) and one democratic transition (Tunisia)? The Arab Spring was, in toto, a disaster. If you want to discourage revolutions by all means publicise it.
Arab Spring was massively successful. It got the entire Arab world hopeful for, and talking about, democracy and self-determination. The fact that all the rebellions fizzled out or were violently put down is completely besides the point.
To be honest, the real protests should begin as key organizers magically "disappear" over the next few months. I can only imagine the amount of intelligence Beijing has collected over these last few days and what sort of operations they have in mind.
The loss of face that they have suffered from this will not stand.
The loss of face that they have suffered from this will not stand.
Already in the plan by the sound of things, with the reports of police arresting the injured in hospital, and being given back door access to medical records...
nullbyte(4)
https://imgur.com/a/qrsJ9af
I saw a whole lot of bridge layers with troops yesterday, now that.
Occasional troop movements can't be said to be unusual around here (74th army has bases all across the plain in between Huizhou and Guangzhou.) I used to see the almost every day, but never before saw them on the move whole day long.