Thread: What methods can poor people use to defend against well equipped oppressors?

OK. Starting a new thread.

Suppose you live in Zimbabwe, and your president doesn't like the outcome of the most recent elections. So he demands a recount, meanwhile putting in an order from China for a new ship full of small arms. His soldiers start showing up at villages where the count was known to be against him previously and start threatening people. In more serious cases they start shooting people and or taking them and torturing them.

What can the villagers do? Let's assume they don't have any money. What kinds of weapons could they make from the materials available to them in order to make a stand and defend themselves?

We can allow really really cheap tech, like old cell phones, but they probably can't afford anything as expensive as a modern assault rifle and ammunition to go with it.

Explosives, traps and guerrilla warfare.

Perhaps Uhura could do her fan dance and lead a platoon to their doom, as well.

Explosives? Maybe we could stretch and assume they have access to fertilizer and diesel. I like the idea of punji sticks that got suggested on the other thread, though.

However, once you start using lethal means to resist your attackers, they're not going to go around looking for the guerillas. They're going to go to the guerillas' village and kill their wives and children. That's just how things are in the third world.

If you can't fight them in a full on direct frontal assault, then you can't win in any meaningful sense of the word "win".

Here's another example of a Third world warlord for you to work with.

General Butt Naked - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you think this guy would have cared how many innocent civilians he had to mow through to find the family of a man who had just left a punji stick trap for his soldiers?

Originally Posted by kojax

OK. Starting a new thread. Suppose you live in Zimbabwe, and your president doesn't like the outcome of the most recent elections. So he demands a recount, meanwhile putting in an order from China for a new ship full of small arms. His soldiers start showing up at villages where the count was known to be against him previously and start threatening people. In more serious cases they start shooting people and or taking them and torturing them. What can the villagers do? Let's assume they don't have any money. What kinds of weapons could they make from the materials available to them in order to make a stand and defend themselves?We can allow really really cheap tech, like old cell phones, but they probably can't afford anything as expensive as a modern assault rifle and ammunition to go with it.

They can hit and disrupt vital supplies and supply routes. Trains, derailed. Roads, destroyed. Aqueducts, smashed. Electrical grids, taken down.... Etc., etc.. Societies are extremely fragile and it is easy to disrupt them.

Think about your own town. What would happen of the bridges were taken out, multiple roads destroyed, power goes down, phone lines and cell phone towers go down, water and gas is cut off, bricks thrown through bank window after bank window, fires are being set at government buildings, police stations, fire houses, distribution centers and markets all over the town, etc...

Hardly high tech or highly intelligent but, extremely effective and powerful.

Originally Posted by kojax

Here's another example of a Third world warlord for you to work with. General Butt Naked - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Do you think this guy would have cared how many innocent civilians he had to mow through to find the family of a man who had just left a punji stick trap for his soldiers?

Everyone dies. Might as well do it, if need be, fighting for something you believe in or so that others might have a chance at a better life.

Originally Posted by kojax

OK. Starting a new thread.

Suppose you live in Zimbabwe, and your president doesn't like the outcome of the most recent elections. So he demands a recount, meanwhile putting in an order from China for a new ship full of small arms. His soldiers start showing up at villages where the count was known to be against him previously and start threatening people. In more serious cases they start shooting people and or taking them and torturing them.

What can the villagers do? Let's assume they don't have any money. What kinds of weapons could they make from the materials available to them in order to make a stand and defend themselves?

We can allow really really cheap tech, like old cell phones, but they probably can't afford anything as expensive as a modern assault rifle and ammunition to go with it.

Use there wits, the younger ones would catch on well. Be creative, perhaps be so strong witted to understand that the best thing to do is to just keep quiet.

Originally Posted by Japith

perhaps be so strong witted to understand that the best thing to do is to just keep quiet.

How odd...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Japith

perhaps be so strong witted to understand that the best thing to do is to just keep quiet.

How odd...

!Hey, it's true..for a defensive method. Now..? are we talking defense or offensive?

Originally Posted by Japith

Hey, it's true..for a defensive method. Now..? are we talking defense or offensive?

I think that on this one, we are just different personality types.

I do not subscribe to your view and while perhaps, it may result in me having a shorter lifespan- I will never die on my knees.

They can all get jobs, and form a simultaneous attack against the invaders. The women with STDs will go into prostitution, those with runny noses will work fast food and sneeze on all the burgers, and those with poor hand eye coordination will work in the textile industry for no reason. Eventually, this will lead to either (A) Nothing, (B) Invaders get upset and invade another equally poverty-stricken country, (C) The fast food restaurants, textile mills, and brothels all go out of business, while simultaneously the country is conquered by the invaders.

why not economially take over. If the others are better armed,because they can afford to import arms then make it so they cannot afford to do so. then make yourself better armed

By real government

none the main point of a government is to pay for infastructure that normal people wouldnt be able to afford. this infastructure once put in place could generate an income for people. A stable income for people means they can afford things they need. This in turn allows for more infastructure to be put in place which mean more income etc some things would easily make money there is currently an energy crisis however you could make solar panels export electricity and make profit to build more panels

thus the problem is getting from a to b. How do you make greedy people happy make life easier. They are inhibiting the countries growth but you would need to either work around them or with them,while working towards a goal that isnt counter-productive to the country

try prohibition doesnt work

what would you do ph?

Originally Posted by Japith

Originally Posted by kojax

OK. Starting a new thread.

Suppose you live in Zimbabwe, and your president doesn't like the outcome of the most recent elections. So he demands a recount, meanwhile putting in an order from China for a new ship full of small arms. His soldiers start showing up at villages where the count was known to be against him previously and start threatening people. In more serious cases they start shooting people and or taking them and torturing them.

What can the villagers do? Let's assume they don't have any money. What kinds of weapons could they make from the materials available to them in order to make a stand and defend themselves?

We can allow really really cheap tech, like old cell phones, but they probably can't afford anything as expensive as a modern assault rifle and ammunition to go with it.

Use there wits, the younger ones would catch on well. Be creative, perhaps be so strong witted to understand that the best thing to do is to just keep quiet.

You mean just let Mr. Mugabe keep his seat? Give up on democracy if the price will be blood?

What happens when Mr. Mugabe decides to get greedy, and take your land and livelihood? Will you and your children be so polite as to starve to death for him ---- you know to avoid violence? Then you and your children can die "the better man" because you didn't resort to violence, right?

But you did resort to violence. You lost. It was just a very one sided exchange. Starvation was the weapon.

Standing by and letting it happen amounts to teaming up with Mr. Mugabe against your own children, rather than teaming up with your own children against Mr. Mugabe. The only difference is what side you were on.

If there are deadly poisonous critters in the area then round them up and let them loose on your oppressors, discreetly of course. Locals should know how to handle indigenous creatures capable of delivering the big bite. They could also enlist the aid of the tiny, such as head lice or nasty little mites. However there is a chance it could affect everybody but when weighed against the alternatives, might be a good option. Make the oppressor's stay as intolerable as possible until they leave.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If there are deadly poisonous critters in the area then round them up and let them loose on your oppressors, discreetly of course.

Nice! That's exactly the kind of constructive suggestion I am hoping for.

Find a strong enough poison and maybe they'd have a weapon that could compare with a gun. Blow darts are nice, quiet weapons, and easy to make. And perhaps women could carry poisoned tooth picks or signet rings around to kill soldiers who attempt to rape them.

Writing, emailing, capturing vid and broadcasting are the most effective weapons.

That's good too. Where coverage allows for it, taking a person's picture and then immediately texting it to a remote server pretty much guarantees the perpetrator of a crime can't get away with it. Or well... that is so long as they don't wear masks. But still the ability to organize in bigger groups faster is good. Go march on the soldiers' base camp while they're out looting and pillaging.

I wish they'd start putting a feature on cell phones where one button or command both takes and immediately sends the picture so people don't have to waste time fumbling around with the menus in a moment of crisis.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Writing, emailing, capturing vid and broadcasting are the most effective weapons.

On second thought, I don't think "raising awareness" does much to help. Outside powers usually just let the genocide happen, because we're too afraid of intervening and then just making the problem worse.

If the people of a country aren't willing to fight for the future of their own country, they pretty much need to accept that nobody else is going to fight that fight for them. If anyone does, they'll be doing it for their own profit, so don't expect to keep any resources after the dust settles. The invaders/conquerors/"liberators" will be wanting that as compensation for their trouble.

Solidarity amongst the group that opposes the government, and a fully realized national consciousness/goal. I guess that isn't exactly what you had in mind Kojax, but the oppresser relies on the oppressed more than the oppressed on the oppresser. It doesn't matter whether the resistance is violent or non-violent, the oppresser cannot win if the oppressed have fully realized their cause: If the oppresser decides to slaughter the oppressed they won't have anyone to steal from, which funds their lifestyle. The only way the oppresser can win is if the rebellion is only a portion of the oppressed population -or- if the oppresser can get the oppressed to sell themselves short through concessions that are only nominally an improvement - which is usually what happens when resistances are not a single cohesive group but rather several small like-minded, but ideologically different, groups that work together.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Solidarity amongst the group that opposes the government, and a fully realized national consciousness/goal. I guess that isn't exactly what you had in mind Kojax, but the oppresser relies on the oppressed more than the oppressed on the oppresser. It doesn't matter whether the resistance is violent or non-violent, the oppresser cannot win if the oppressed have fully realized their cause:

Nonviolent protest usually only works if it can sway a military force to back it up. Martin Luther King's efforts would have been in vain if they didn't sway the people to send the National Guard or the Police in to stop the racists who were causing trouble.

Ghandi's rebellion swayed the hearts and minds of foreign powers like the USA, who then put pressure on the UK to give in to his demands.

Who would a non-violent movement in Zimbabwe sway?

If the oppresser decides to slaughter the oppressed they won't have anyone to steal from, which funds their lifestyle.

It's Darwinian selection. They slaughter the ones who are the most self assertive, and leave the passive ones alive.

The only way the oppresser can win is if the rebellion is only a portion of the oppressed population -or- if the oppresser can get the oppressed to sell themselves short through concessions that are only nominally an improvement - which is usually what happens when resistances are not a single cohesive group but rather several small like-minded, but ideologically different, groups that work together.

Only a portion of the population is ever determined enough to be willing to die for its beliefs, or even endure hardship.

There's no such thing as a homogeneous population made up 100% of people who all think exactly the same way and agree to the exact same degree.

If 10% of the population doesn't feel like fighting about it, you can always kill the other 90% and have enough people left to serve you. Besides that, the land and resources of a third world country are usually worth more than the labor anyway. If the country were underpopulated, you can open the borders and let in refugees from abroad.

Do what tens of thousands of whites and millions of blacks have done. Give up your land and home, and start the long walk to freedom and safety, passing the slaughtered remains of your friends and neighbors.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by stander-j

Solidarity amongst the group that opposes the government, and a fully realized national consciousness/goal. I guess that isn't exactly what you had in mind Kojax, but the oppresser relies on the oppressed more than the oppressed on the oppresser. It doesn't matter whether the resistance is violent or non-violent, the oppresser cannot win if the oppressed have fully realized their cause:

Nonviolent protest usually only works if it can sway a military force to back it up. Martin Luther King's efforts would have been in vain if they didn't sway the people to send the National Guard or the Police in to stop the racists who were causing trouble.

Ghandi's rebellion swayed the hearts and minds of foreign powers like the USA, who then put pressure on the UK to give in to his demands.

Who would a non-violent movement in Zimbabwe sway?

If the oppresser decides to slaughter the oppressed they won't have anyone to steal from, which funds their lifestyle.

It's Darwinian selection. They slaughter the ones who are the most self assertive, and leave the passive ones alive.

The only way the oppresser can win is if the rebellion is only a portion of the oppressed population -or- if the oppresser can get the oppressed to sell themselves short through concessions that are only nominally an improvement - which is usually what happens when resistances are not a single cohesive group but rather several small like-minded, but ideologically different, groups that work together.

Only a portion of the population is ever determined enough to be willing to die for its beliefs, or even endure hardship.

There's no such thing as a homogeneous population made up 100% of people who all think exactly the same way and agree to the exact same degree.

If 10% of the population doesn't feel like fighting about it, you can always kill the other 90% and have enough people left to serve you. Besides that, the land and resources of a third world country are usually worth more than the labor anyway. If the country were underpopulated, you can open the borders and let in refugees from abroad.

Non-Violent movements do not rely on foreign powers for success. Do you really the UK gave up India because of the United States -or- because it was becoming less an less profitable to hold onto India?

I think the African Union would probably support a non-violent movement against Mugabe/the Junta. Mugabe has long been defended by other African Leaders, but the fact is they are primarily concerned about the people of Zimbabwe - Mugabe's Champion of Anti-Colonialism image has lost much of its charm. When African leaders defend Mugabe, chances are they'll also be mentioning Zimbabwe's need for humanitarian aid. There was a reason that South Africa had left its borders unconditionally open for Zimbabwean refugees.

Contrary to what you may think, it is usually the more passive people in the resistance that are done away with - they are usually the followers and the essential powerhouse of a revolution. Frantz Fanon thought these types were the Lumpenproletariat. The vocal, and active, resistors are usually the intellectuals - and oppressors usually want to sway these types onto their side. The intellectual/educated provide necessary services. Who will be your doctors, nurses, school teachers, professors, architects, and businessmen if you've done away with them? Also, when you kill off the intellectuals, the leaders of revolutions, you get chaos - which is definitely something oppressors do not want.

Now, of course this isn't representative of every situation - but this is a trend that comes to mind when thinking about African revolutions and nations.

You're right in saying that no revolution has ever been made of 100% of the oppressed that believed in exactly the same thing. When I said, "the only way an oppressor can win is if only a portion of the oppressed are revolting" I meant a small portion, less than a quarter of the population - maybe even less than that. What I was getting at with the importance of solidarity is that the less alike the ideologies of the resistors, the less likely their success - as groups will continually join, defect, desert etcetera. What African revolutionaries argued is that without a single banner to unite under, there isn't a single specific point that defines victory - as each and every group has their own victory in mind. So it's not about everyone agreeing 100% ideologically, it's about everyone agreeing on a specific goal that needs to be met.

As far as what you said about simply killing of the resistors and allowing the others to live... I doubt that would work. Like I had already said, if the number of resistors is small - yeah, the oppressors can succeed. If we're talking 25, 30, 50+ percent of the population? No, it will not work. Because if you're killing 1/4 of the population, you're killing one person for every four people I know. At a certain point - you're going to be crossing a line where the population that does not want to fight is going to say that the cost of being idle is too high. Assuming that no one else in the population would rise against you, what happens when you've killed off 1/4 of your population? Even if you don't entirely rely on their labours, you're taking a massive pay-cut. Remember, you only have power because you're the one who says when the guns fire - but firing those guns also costs money. You have to feed them, give them clothes, give them money, and give them a reason stay loyal. So what happens when you start cancelling some of the loyalty money? Does Lieutenant X suddenly seem like a brilliant leader to them? Or do they think, "You know, why not just join the rebellion?" These are things you are not considering when you assume you can just kill off 90% of the population without any repercussions.

As for simply replacing the old population with a new, refugee, population - good luck, I'm sure the mysterious odour of rot that has encompassed your territory does send any sort of disconcerting message to the man evading his own demise.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Non-Violent movements do not rely on foreign powers for success. Do you really the UK gave up India because of the United States -or- because it was becoming less an less profitable to hold onto India?

The only reason it wasn't profitable is because they couldn't just roll in there with tanks and start killing everyone. They'd lose their allies.

Most of the resistance movement took place during WW2, when pressure from the USA could come in the form of denying them necessary war assistance. However, admittedly the final decision to let go of India was after the war had ended.

I think the African Union would probably support a non-violent movement against Mugabe/the Junta. Mugabe has long been defended by other African Leaders, but the fact is they are primarily concerned about the people of Zimbabwe - Mugabe's Champion of Anti-Colonialism image has lost much of its charm. When African leaders defend Mugabe, chances are they'll also be mentioning Zimbabwe's need for humanitarian aid. There was a reason that South Africa had left its borders unconditionally open for Zimbabwean refugees.

I hadn't thought of that possibility. I guess it's true that Mugabe does need those peoples' support.

Contrary to what you may think, it is usually the more passive people in the resistance that are done away with - they are usually the followers and the essential powerhouse of a revolution. Frantz Fanon thought these types were the Lumpenproletariat. The vocal, and active, resistors are usually the intellectuals - and oppressors usually want to sway these types onto their side. The intellectual/educated provide necessary services. Who will be your doctors, nurses, school teachers, professors, architects, and businessmen if you've done away with them? Also, when you kill off the intellectuals, the leaders of revolutions, you get chaos - which is definitely something oppressors do not want.

Now, of course this isn't representative of every situation - but this is a trend that comes to mind when thinking about African revolutions and nations.

Depends on what kind of oppressor I guess. Communist oppressors such as Pol Pot or Stalin, often bit their teeth into the intellectuals first. I don't know how African dictators have approached this matter.

Also, please understand I'm not trying to change topics. I just want the information to be as generally applicable as possible. There are plenty of villagers in places like Mayanmar and parts of Thailand who need to defend themselves also, not just in Africa.

As far as what you said about simply killing of the resistors and allowing the others to live... I doubt that would work. Like I had already said, if the number of resistors is small - yeah, the oppressors can succeed. If we're talking 25, 30, 50+ percent of the population? No, it will not work. Because if you're killing 1/4 of the population, you're killing one person for every four people I know. At a certain point - you're going to be crossing a line where the population that does not want to fight is going to say that the cost of being idle is too high. Assuming that no one else in the population would rise against you, what happens when you've killed off 1/4 of your population? Even if you don't entirely rely on their labours, you're taking a massive pay-cut. Remember, you only have power because you're the one who says when the guns fire - but firing those guns also costs money. You have to feed them, give them clothes, give them money, and give them a reason stay loyal. So what happens when you start cancelling some of the loyalty money? Does Lieutenant X suddenly seem like a brilliant leader to them? Or do they think, "You know, why not just join the rebellion?" These are things you are not considering when you assume you can just kill off 90% of the population without any repercussions.

As for simply replacing the old population with a new, refugee, population - good luck, I'm sure the mysterious odour of rot that has encompassed your territory does send any sort of disconcerting message to the man evading his own demise.

There are two issues with this.

1) - Tribalism. Mugabe rules with the support of his tribe. People from one tribe in Zimbabwe may not feel any remorse at all when they're killing members of another tribe. So you don't spread the killing out across all the tribes. You just wipe out a few of them completely, and leave others entirely untouched. To the tribes which have supported you, you give the lands and belongings of the deceased.


2) - Natural resources. To a foreign power like the USA or China, or various European powers, access to your mineral riches is all they want anyway. They'll pay good money to be allowed to set up and mine/drill/etc. They're usually willing to bring their own workers, too. Not much need for the local population to do anything except stay out of the way.

you'd have to rely on skill and technique and strategy more than type of weapons you have.

1. espionage
2. gorilla warfare
3. knife/sword fighting
4. bow & arrow
5. engineering abilities
6. manufacturing capabilities
7. education (yes, education is a weapon)
8. networking capabilities
9. architecture & carpentry abilities

I'd say those things are important

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Still not sure what you're trying to say - the OP was about defending yourself from a corrupt government not instituting a new one.

same thing no?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Not really. The point I was trying to make is how can you get organised enough to form a new government when you have no money, no weapons etc. and the other guys have money, guns etc?

you may wager, barter, and/or steal more than what money might define. such as food, land, shelter, power, promises to power or the such, weapons, etc. what ever else may carry value.

*Chuckle*

Attachment 2182

I thought of the same thing when I typed it.

Originally Posted by chero

you'd have to rely on skill and technique and strategy more than type of weapons you have. 1. espionage2. gorilla warfare3. knife/sword fighting4. bow & arrow5. engineering abilities6. manufacturing capabilities7. education (yes, education is a weapon)8. networking capabilities9. architecture & carpentry abilitiesI'd say those things are important

2 sick individuals, with backpack bombs that could have been made by high school students, shut down all of Boston and the greater Boston area for hours, and had millions shaking in their boots.

Governments and communities are extremely fragile. The unarmed poor within a community could bring a community to its knees.... And a semi educated and armed middle class can do much more.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Not really. The point I was trying to make is how can you get organised enough to form a new government when you have no money, no weapons etc. and the other guys have money, guns etc?

you may wager, barter, and/or steal more than what money might define. such as food, land, shelter, power, promises to power or the such, weapons, etc. what ever else may carry value.

Who would you steal from? The other villagers? They're probably just as broke as you. Everyone who has any wealth is also going to have it guarded - and the more wealth the better equipped the guards are.

Who would you barter with? A corporation in a first world country? They'll ask something of you when it's over. And pretty soon your revolution's new government will be just as bad as the one it overthrew.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by chero

you'd have to rely on skill and technique and strategy more than type of weapons you have. 1. espionage2. gorilla warfare3. knife/sword fighting4. bow & arrow5. engineering abilities6. manufacturing capabilities7. education (yes, education is a weapon)8. networking capabilities9. architecture & carpentry abilitiesI'd say those things are important

2 sick individuals, with backpack bombs that could have been made by high school students, shut down all of Boston and the greater Boston area for hours, and had millions shaking in their boots.

Governments and communities are extremely fragile. The unarmed poor within a community could bring a community to its knees.... And a semi educated and armed middle class can do much more.

First world governments are fragile that way. Third world governments, not so much.

These dictators rule by terror already. You're not going to beat them at their own game. If you bomb an event in their neighborhood, they'll go into your village and just kill the whole village. It's not like when the USA invades where we feel an obligation to try to find and kill just the terrorists. If Robert Mugabe has a problem with you, he's just as happy to kill your wife and kid, but leave you alive.

Kojax, one look at google earth and one can/could see how easy it would be for the poor people to bring Zimbabwe to its knees. Their power infrastructure is limited, simple and open. Their railroad and highway systems are limited, simple and open. Their farms are zoned. City water supplies are clear... Etc..

A few thousand men located in the major cities (only a handful of cities) armed with nothing but fire bombs hitting banks, grocery stores, distribution centers, shipping yards, gas stations, plants, water companies, government buildings, etc., with a few thousand men in the countryside smashing railroad tracks, roads, bridges, farms, powerlines, towers, etc., should be more than enough to kick start the beginning of the end for that government.

What would disrupting the economic infrastructure do?

The military very likely has its own supply lines, and if those lines ran short they could drive trucks into the villages and pillage whatever food they wanted from the villagers.

Lots of civilians would starve. Mugabe would be sure to give what few resources remained to his supporters, at the expense of his political opponents. He has already decimated the economy of that poor country throughout his career thus far, and yet he remains in power.

Use time. The smartest move might well be to say, "yes Massa " and wait for the AH to die.
This is also a valid international stratagy when dealing with a national leader who has a strong personal possition. Think how much grief might have been avoided if the US could have been tolerant of Cuba's little communist experiment, and just left them alone ? I lived though that fiasco. Castro's government wanted to nationalize their sugar industry and take the largest part of their national ecconomy out of the hands of foreigners. The power to nationalize a segment of the internal ecconomy is a valid power of a national government. But "United Fruit" was a US company and had a stragle hold on sugar production in Cuba. We would be outraged if a foriegn power tried to dictate internal ecconomic policy to us, but thought nothing of imposing daconian ecconomic warfare against what had been one of our closet allies in this hemisphere. The cuban people loved America and liked Americans pretty well. Baseball was the most popular sport. Cuba and its revolution were pretty popular here as well. A rum and Coke used to be called a "Cuba Libre" in the US.
We needlessly made an enemy out of a friend. Stupid.

Originally Posted by kojax

What would disrupting the economic infrastructure do?

The military very likely has its own supply lines, and if those lines ran short they could drive trucks into the villages and pillage whatever food they wanted from the villagers.

Not really, they do but it's only at the tactical level and not designed for strategic supply necessary to drive modern military (which is why even the warzone the US depends on contractors so much). The more modern the military more dependent it is on supply from outside the military--exactly where an insurgency would focus to disrupt their operations.

2 sick individuals, with backpack bombs that could have been made by high school students, shut down all of Boston and the greater Boston area for hours, and had millions shaking in their boots.

That's mostly because Americans, as well as the government is in large part completely untrained in how to compartmentalize effects on the population, and the population has an irrational fear response to the incident--the same event in Europe would have shut down a few dozen blocks at most--in Baghdad a block or two.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Use time. The smartest move might well be to say, "yes Massa " and wait for the AH to die.

Honestly?

You realize a lot of these dictators live a very, very long time, right? Longer than you'll live with poor access to food, water, or healthcare. Possibly longer than your children will live if they fall ill to a curable disease, and never get a proper education while you're busy waiting. Then, if it's like North Korea, the guy's son will just take over where he left off.

But the real problem is usually not the dictator himself. He's just a clown being paraded around by the real players. The real problem is the military complex underneath him. When the military is in charge of your country, nothing can move forward.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Castro's government wanted to nationalize their sugar industry and take the largest part of their national ecconomy out of the hands of foreigners. The power to nationalize a segment of the internal ecconomy is a valid power of a national government.

"Nationalize" is just a polite word for "take". In the USA we assert that private citizens have the right to "Just Compensation" when the government wants to seize private property. For example, if your house is in the path of a new highway that the state wants to build, they do have the legal ability to force you against your will to give them the land. However, they are required to give you an amount of money equal to a fair estimate of what the land they are taking is worth.

Cuba, as near as I can tell, had no intention of giving the American companies a just compensation, or anything near it.

But "United Fruit" was a US company and had a stragle hold on sugar production in Cuba. We would be outraged if a foriegn power tried to dictate internal ecconomic policy to us, but thought nothing of imposing daconian ecconomic warfare against what had been one of our closet allies in this hemisphere.

We were angry at Cuba's government for essentially stealing our property outright.

Originally Posted by kojax

What would disrupting the economic infrastructure do? The military very likely has its own supply lines, and if those lines ran short they could drive trucks into the villages and pillage whatever food they wanted from the villagers. Lots of civilians would starve. Mugabe would be sure to give what few resources remained to his supporters, at the expense of his political opponents. He has already decimated the economy of that poor country throughout his career thus far, and yet he remains in power.

Those that do not have, as a whole, end up attacking those who do. A starving population will produce enough desperation, enough broken loyalty, that even the sickest of leaders would have to reduce his or her own influence and foot print. They will, without realizing it, tighten their own noose.... Meaning, as they think they are insulating and protecting themselves from the people, all they will really be doing is greatly reducing their locations (numbers and size) and greatly reducing how many men and arms it will take to hunt them down and root them out.

Take away mugabe's control over the economy and infrustruction and he will be reduced to a very wealthy man in a lawless country filled with desperate and starving people.

"Nationalize" is just a polite word for "take". In the USA we assert that private citizens have the right to "Just Compensation" when the government wants to seize private property. For example, if your house is in the path of a new highway that the state wants to build, they do have the legal ability to force you against your will to give them the land. However, they are required to give you an amount of money equal to a fair estimate of what the land they are taking is worth.

Cuba, as near as I can tell, had no intention of giving the American companies a just compensation, or anything near it.

It's interesting though to point out the differences between different types of nationalize. Sometimes it's simply taking of resources from private citizens. Other times it's asserting national sovereignty and either taking or demanding fair payments for resources being removed by largely foreign entities (companies) draining the nation dry, often doing extensive ecological damage and exploitation of the people. Of course there's often ties between those foreign companies and rich locals so it's not black and white. Imagine if a Saudi company were removing Alaska oil and providing nothing but a tiny amount of jobs and a few cents per dollar for each barrel (and perhaps paying off a politician to keep it that way). Imagine if American and foreign companies were taking billions of $ of minerals off US National lands, only paying a few buck per acres per year for leases, and purposely declaring bankruptcy to avoid the clean up cost---(this was a serious reality only a few decades ago--it's slowly getting sorted); imagine if foreign sugar companies were denuding the land for a few years of productivity before clear cutting more and repeating the cycle while almost none of the profits went to locals? (this was Cuba, aka 1950s as far as I understand); imagine living in a state that made Louisiana look rich beyond your wildest dreams while foreign companies (US, British, now Chinese etc) pumped trillions of dollars of oil from under your feet (the source of much of the violence in Iraq since the 1950s).

Nationalizing resources takes many forms and always isn't a bad thing.

All of those problems could be solved with just compensation. It's important for the state to recognize its own fault in such matters. If they previously gave a foreign company a sweetheart lucrative deal pillaging a national forest and now they want to fix it, that's great.

But they should pay the value of those contracts before they cancel them.

It's like betting 100 bucks on a blackjack table in Vegas, and then losing, and asking for your money back. The possibility you may make a deal you later realize you shouldn't have made is part of the risk of business.

Originally Posted by kojax

All of those problems could be solved with just compensation. It's important for the state to recognize its own fault in such matters. If they previously gave a foreign company a sweetheart lucrative deal pillaging a national forest and now they want to fix it, that's great.

But they should pay the value of those contracts before they cancel them.

It's like betting 100 bucks on a blackjack table in Vegas, and then losing, and asking for your money back. The possibility you may make a deal you later realize you shouldn't have made is part of the risk of business.

I think you miss the point that time after time revolutions have been fueled by general agreement among the population that external entities has been exploiting the people with the cooperation of a tiny elite minority often tied to the government. One of the assertions made by insurgencies is that natural resources belongs to the people, not the outsiders. Foreign companies DO NOT HAVE the right to sap a nation of it's natural resources against the will of the people, nor any right to receive compensation after the revolution--anymore than an Iranian oil company could tap oil from an American land and demand compensation.

Ultimately the people choose who they deal with and what price they set.

head hunters of borneo vs japanese soldiers in 1945
The Airmen and the Headhunters: Watch a Preview | Secrets of the Dead | PBS

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Not really. The point I was trying to make is how can you get organized enough to form a new government when you have no money, no weapons etc. and the other guys have money, guns etc?

you may wager, barter, and/or steal more than what money might define. such as food, land, shelter, power, promises to power or the such, weapons, etc. what ever else may carry value.

Who would you steal from? The other villagers? They're probably just as broke as you. Everyone who has any wealth is also going to have it guarded - and the more wealth the better equipped the guards are.

Who would you barter with? A corporation in a first world country? They'll ask something of you when it's over. And pretty soon your revolution's new government will be just as bad as the one it overthrew.

I am considering a third world country which has multiple warlords...in one or two may be dealt with while others may not.
as for hunting, selling animal meet to anyone (even opposition) may help fuel the cause or your own strength. the opposition may be feed, but their trust in you is more important. you can create friends that way which may give you breaks or even other forms of help to survive.

however, forming a new govt. usually occurs after your faction won against another faction. in which case you must gain control of resources and other means.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If there are deadly poisonous critters in the area then round them up and let them loose on your oppressors, discreetly of course.

Nice! That's exactly the kind of constructive suggestion I am hoping for.

Find a strong enough poison and maybe they'd have a weapon that could compare with a gun. Blow darts are nice, quiet weapons, and easy to make. And perhaps women could carry poisoned tooth picks or signet rings around to kill soldiers who attempt to rape them.

funny I said something similar in your original thread and it went completely unnoticed until Chero took notice of it today.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I would think quieter weapons that are effective but don't give away your position too easily would be better.

Traps, snares, blow darts, arrows, sling shots.... being able to use terrain that is unfamiliar to the invader is always an advantage. Also knowing the wildlife. Knowing how to catch and strategically place venomous critters in or near the beds of the enemy can be pretty effective, rigging an avalanche to bury an envoy of troops.

or even situations like in the movie "300" where the small army of Spartans forced the huge Persian army to have to attack them through a bottle neck reducing the effectiveness of their numbers where only the immediate narrow front line of the Persians was able to do anything against the army.

And intimidation is another thing. You can make them fear you by simply placing the heads of your enemy on sticks along the paths you expect them to be taking. Soldiers seeing such horrific things can be completely demoralized seeing brutality like that and cause them to imagine your strength and size to be much more than it is. Fear can cripple many. When you imagine you are going up against a monster rather than just a twisted human being, you forget that they have the same weaknesses as anyone else.

Also, consider how the colonists of the US defeated the British troops with the help from the natives. They taught us how to hide behind trees and blend in with our environment, rather than wearing bright red jackets and standing in formation following fancy royal rules for fighting. We fought "dirty" according to the Brits of the time, but we fought smart. And the British learned from that, or else they would still be wearing targets when they go into battle. But they don't, they wear camouflage now.

Also, consider how the colonists of the US defeated the British troops with the help from the natives. They taught us how to hide behind trees and blend in with our environment, rather than wearing bright red jackets and standing in formation following fancy royal rules for fighting. We fought "dirty" according to the Brits of the time, but we fought smart. And the British learned from that, or else they would still be wearing targets when they go into battle. But they don't, they wear camouflage now.

That's something American education overemphasizes by a great deal. 1) The Brits used the same tactics--both sides to gather intel and to skirmish with help of the Natives, 2) the heavy lifting was done by the Continental Army using conventional mass and lined movements backed by Artillery--in fact from a military standpoint the winter at Valley forge to train Revolutionaries to fight like the British in major force on force battles was probably the most important part of the war. Similarly the French blockades using their ships of the line Navy played a key piece to end the war.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

All of those problems could be solved with just compensation. It's important for the state to recognize its own fault in such matters. If they previously gave a foreign company a sweetheart lucrative deal pillaging a national forest and now they want to fix it, that's great.

But they should pay the value of those contracts before they cancel them.

It's like betting 100 bucks on a blackjack table in Vegas, and then losing, and asking for your money back. The possibility you may make a deal you later realize you shouldn't have made is part of the risk of business.

I think you miss the point that time after time revolutions have been fueled by general agreement among the population that external entities has been exploiting the people with the cooperation of a tiny elite minority often tied to the government. One of the assertions made by insurgencies is that natural resources belongs to the people, not the outsiders. Foreign companies DO NOT HAVE the right to sap a nation of it's natural resources against the will of the people, nor any right to receive compensation after the revolution--anymore than an Iranian oil company could tap oil from an American land and demand compensation.

Ultimately the people choose who they deal with and what price they set.

In that event, every nation could get out of any and all debts it owes just by a "change in management", and arguing that the previous government wasn't popular.

How do you simultaneously

1) - Give nations the right to autonomy.

and

2) - Let them cop out every time they screw up the management of their own autonomy?

Ultimately it is almost always the peoples' fault if a dictator comes into power. Usually they will have given him popular support on his way up, and then he changed and they couldn't foresee that. Too bad. It was their job to foresee it.

Again, it's just like gambling in a casino. You can't ask for you money back after you've seen your cards.

Originally Posted by chero

Originally Posted by kojax

Who would you barter with? A corporation in a first world country? They'll ask something of you when it's over. And pretty soon your revolution's new government will be just as bad as the one it overthrew.

I am considering a third world country which has multiple warlords...in one or two may be dealt with while others may not.
as for hunting, selling animal meet to anyone (even opposition) may help fuel the cause or your own strength. the opposition may be feed, but their trust in you is more important. you can create friends that way which may give you breaks or even other forms of help to survive.

however, forming a new govt. usually occurs after your faction won against another faction. in which case you must gain control of resources and other means.

Deal made with a warlord would certainly not be binding. On that we can agree.

Until there's a government recognized by the U.N. I think it's fair to tell first world corporations that they are buying at their own risk if they deal with the proto-governments of the region.

If that proto-government later becomes the recognized government, then they've won the bet. If not then they've lost.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by chero

I am considering a third world country which has multiple warlords...in one or two may be dealt with while others may not.
as for hunting, selling animal meet to anyone (even opposition) may help fuel the cause or your own strength. the opposition may be feed, but their trust in you is more important. you can create friends that way which may give you breaks or even other forms of help to survive.

however, forming a new govt. usually occurs after your faction won against another faction. in which case you must gain control of resources and other means.

Deal made with a warlord would certainly not be binding. On that we can agree.

Until there's a government recognized by the U.N. I think it's fair to tell first world corporations that they are buying at their own risk if they deal with the proto-governments of the region.

If that proto-government later becomes the recognized government, then they've won the bet. If not then they've lost.

I do agree with you that anyone could switch positions at any moment. I would never deny that. However, I would still consider warlords or any general with the goal to obtaining and keeping their own booty a prize in itself. that's how you have warlords/villages in Afghanistan making promises to either U.N./U.S./Afghan govt. allegiance or not. similarly, warlords/villages remain separate (or allied) in Somalia.

The movie "Hotel Rwanda" showcases the history of "deals" possible. A hotel owner was able to help many people escape genocide. However, conditions to a war is unique to the war. I do expect what I suggest as possible to being extremely difficult.

though other countries recognizing your govt. as the ruling force of a country has been historically important, I don't see this as a necessity for trade. hence "blood diamonds" being illegal but still having a place within the world market. furthermore, consider Somalia during the 1990's. civil war was rampant, and stability was gone. famine was extreme. yet, they still had enough of a market for an armory, vehicle trading, and even cell phone service. there is always a market.
(sounds good for a movie)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Also, consider how the colonists of the US defeated the British troops with the help from the natives. They taught us how to hide behind trees and blend in with our environment, rather than wearing bright red jackets and standing in formation following fancy royal rules for fighting. We fought "dirty" according to the Brits of the time, but we fought smart. And the British learned from that, or else they would still be wearing targets when they go into battle. But they don't, they wear camouflage now.

That's something American education overemphasizes by a great deal. 1) The Brits used the same tactics--both sides to gather intel and to skirmish with help of the Natives, 2) the heavy lifting was done by the Continental Army using conventional mass and lined movements backed by Artillery--in fact from a military standpoint the winter at Valley forge to train Revolutionaries to fight like the British in major force on force battles was probably the most important part of the war. Similarly the French blockades using their ships of the line Navy played a key piece to end the war.

Is there any statute of limitations on how long after the fact you can sue your elementary school for educational neglect? lol

Poor people are already survivors. They may stand a better chance of surviving an oppressor than a wealthier citizen. Like being stranded on a desert island with a doctor, lawyer and poor farmer....who you putting your money on? They might not be able to buy their tools so they resort to inventiveness and resourcefulness which might even include some nefarious deeds.

I think a poor populace would be cunning enough to create a way to create havoc amongst their oppressors. I wonder if an underground network of tunnels might work. Tunnels that lead to strategic objectives, possibly an arsenal or food supply depot. Sabotage the guns and ammo while poisoning the food all without being detected. There is an element of risk with any undertaking so nothing is guaranteed but may be better than the alternative.

i think poor people should work together like the Gandhian movement across India. it was pretty successful movement ,but in today's world peace movement wont work so poor people have to plan and learn how to use simple tools like pitchforks and potatoes (to make potatoes guns ) to fight also have necessary strategy plans