Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is this story more good news from Iraq?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 235168" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>I don't think it really matters whether or not I share your religious beliefs (I can assure you it doesn't matter to me). The point is that using brutally repressive tactics against an insurgency did not save the Roman empire. In fact it's never saved any regime in the longterm. The Nazi's used the same tactics against the French resistance (wiping out whole villages, etc.), and yet the resistance never quit. They just got more determined. The Soviets did the same thing and it didn't save them either. Look what the Japanese did at <a href="http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/nanking_massacre.htm" target="_blank">Nanking</a>, are you really suggesting something like that would be justified in Iraq? </p><p></p><p> Whenever an occupying power engages in brutality, all it does in confirm in the minds of the populace that the insurgents are right, the occupiers are evil, with the result that the insurgency gets stronger, not weaker.</p><p></p><p> When I hear people making the argument (as Bush did the other day) that the biggest mistake we made in Vietnam was leaving too soon, and we shouldn't make the same mistake in Iraq, I have to wonder what history books they have (or haven't) been reading.</p><p></p><p> We spent 10 years in Vietnam, at the height of the conflict we had over 500,000 troops in country (more than three times what we have in Iraq, a country with 25% more land area) and more than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. What more were we supposed to do exactly? 10 more years? 100,000 casualties? And for what? Vietnam seems to have done just fine without us, in fact they are now a valued trading partner. Maybe if we <strong><em>hadn't</em></strong> spent ten years there propping up a corrupt regime through force of arms and dividing the country into pro-US and anti-US factions there never would have been a refugee crisis, at least nowhere near as bad what happened when we left. In the long term all our involvement accomplished was making it worse for the people who lived there.</p><p></p><p> And that's the reason we lost, btw. Because we were <strong><em>always</em></strong> going to leave. Staying forever was never an option for us. It wasn't our country, it was never a threat to our national security, and we never should have been there in the first place. The only question was how many Americans were going to be killed before we figured it out.</p><p></p><p> It all sounds depressingly familiar.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 235168, member: 4805"] I don't think it really matters whether or not I share your religious beliefs (I can assure you it doesn't matter to me). The point is that using brutally repressive tactics against an insurgency did not save the Roman empire. In fact it's never saved any regime in the longterm. The Nazi's used the same tactics against the French resistance (wiping out whole villages, etc.), and yet the resistance never quit. They just got more determined. The Soviets did the same thing and it didn't save them either. Look what the Japanese did at [URL="http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/nanking_massacre.htm"]Nanking[/URL], are you really suggesting something like that would be justified in Iraq? Whenever an occupying power engages in brutality, all it does in confirm in the minds of the populace that the insurgents are right, the occupiers are evil, with the result that the insurgency gets stronger, not weaker. When I hear people making the argument (as Bush did the other day) that the biggest mistake we made in Vietnam was leaving too soon, and we shouldn't make the same mistake in Iraq, I have to wonder what history books they have (or haven't) been reading. We spent 10 years in Vietnam, at the height of the conflict we had over 500,000 troops in country (more than three times what we have in Iraq, a country with 25% more land area) and more than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. What more were we supposed to do exactly? 10 more years? 100,000 casualties? And for what? Vietnam seems to have done just fine without us, in fact they are now a valued trading partner. Maybe if we [B][I]hadn't[/I][/B] spent ten years there propping up a corrupt regime through force of arms and dividing the country into pro-US and anti-US factions there never would have been a refugee crisis, at least nowhere near as bad what happened when we left. In the long term all our involvement accomplished was making it worse for the people who lived there. And that's the reason we lost, btw. Because we were [B][I]always[/I][/B] going to leave. Staying forever was never an option for us. It wasn't our country, it was never a threat to our national security, and we never should have been there in the first place. The only question was how many Americans were going to be killed before we figured it out. It all sounds depressingly familiar. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is this story more good news from Iraq?
Top