spyder
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
mary had a little lamb and the doctor fainted.
Posts: 517
|
Post by spyder on Aug 25, 2005 20:07:03 GMT -5
I agree wholeheartedly spydy, I only think we should have spent the resources #1 on crippling Al Qaida(more) and taking out Bin Ladin, #2 securing our own country. Going after Iraq should have been much lower on the list and their connection to 9-11 is very small at best. But we are there, hopefully I will be dead wrong in the coming years and things will go much better. As far as Sheehan, she's grieving in her own way. IMO, there's no reason Bush shouldn't talk to her for awhile rather than jokingly look for WMDs under his podium. Seth well it's always good to be an armchair president. i couldn't for the life of me make the decisions bush or previous presidents have had to make. i too thought, what would it hurt for bush to talk to sheehan....wonder if she's related to billy? okay back on topic. number one reason why i believe he's not sitting down discussing things with her is because it would give the impression that her son is the only lost life that counts. by speaking with her, it'd open a can of worms. he'd have to speak to everyone that's lost a loved one. she's just anti-war, anti-bush. i honestly don't think it's all about the death of her son. it's just to create unrest here back at home. there were a couple of occasions the previous administration could have captured or done whatever with osama. afterall we knew he was behind the cole incident. they had him in their site. if we were to capture him tomorrow, who'd be the hero? maybe i bleed red, white and blue too much. i still get tears in my eyes when i hear our national anthem.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Aug 26, 2005 5:59:44 GMT -5
I hear ya, our intelligence...whether during this administration or Clinton's has been shaky at best and many decisions made by these guys have had me scratching my head. For the record, I'm no fan of the Democrats either...from my perspective, the big politicians have tough decisions to make...problem is, they have to cater to special interests too much. I don't suppose there's much getting around that.
But IMO still, Bush can do whatever he wants as far as Sheehan and all other protesters....he's the president after all. I don't really agree with her or any protesters for that matter, all that BS aint gonna change anything once something like this is in motion. I think the whole thing could have been defused much earlier had he spoke with her and said ahead of time that this is a one time thing and she represents all the grieving parents/loved ones of soldiers.
Seth
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 9:59:32 GMT -5
Hegel is a moron. He voted in favor of the war with no evidence. In order to have credibility, he'd have to admit his failure to fulfill his duty to this constituents; apologize for it; and actively seek the impeachment of the president. Anything less than that and he's just another wishy-washy politicans changing course with the wind. Allen is a moron. He does recognize failure when he sees it. He doesn't understand the mindset of the Iraqis. They don't care about a constitution. They just want us out. Everything after that is a worthless detail. Graham is a moron. He says that US security is tied to success in Iraq. Bull. US security is tied to getting out of Iraq. He voted for this war. He is directly responsible for creating the dysfunctional, repressive government that will be the result in Iraq. Lott is a moron. He thinks the US is winning Iraq when it is clearly losing. He wants us to stay until we meet goals that are not possible. I don't find much intelligence emanating from most of the dumbasses in government. They all just change their tune to aggrandize their own influence and power. One consistent exception to this generalized rule is Ron Paul - US Congressman from the 14th District of Texas. www.house.gov/paul/Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 10:01:15 GMT -5
yep, hey: lets keep listening to the guys who have never actually been to war or seen war first hand. Don't overlook the fact that most of the anti-war folks suffer from the same deficiency. Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 10:29:06 GMT -5
They've already admitted that intellegence on WMD was faulty. What the fuck else can they do? Admit that they cooked it. Acknowledge the truth that they knew it be wrong at the time they were touting it. Confess to taking America into an unnecessary war. Resign. Turn themselves in. Face prison time. Speaking of Saddam. Getting rid of Saddam, Brilliant! Agreed. But let's wait until the replacement has had a few years to demonstrate an improvement before crowing about it. and... It's pretty amazing how this so called anti-war movement is being trumped up by the media. The media are whores. They sell anything that sells. They sold the war. The best way to honor our servicemen's and women's sacrifice is to finish the job and then bring them home as heroes. This is a crock. The best way to honor their sacrifice is to speak the truth. Admit that the war has been a fraud. Admit that they died only for their brothers in arms and that's a good enough reason to honor them. Apologize to their families for the unnessary loss of life and compensate the families. Make another (empty) promise of never again. To cut and run is the worst fucking idea ever. No it isn't. The worst idea is staying and dying for no reason. What message does that send the terrorists? That we're not stupid enough to keep on dying when we're losing. And BTW, Chuck Hagel is barely a republican. What is a republican? What do they stand for? Nothing and nothing as far as I can tell. We should have upped the number of soldiers more than a year ago and cleaned their clock. Wholesale genocide was certainly an effective way to terminate the native insurgency in this country. Whether you think that's moral or not is your own decision to make. They should have replaced Rumsfeld in 2004 They should have replaced him in September of 2001 when he failed miserably at executing his primary mission of defending the USA. Iraq will have their constitution, and they will have their democracy. Whether they want it or not, eh? Yay, freedom! And remember we have an all volunteer army. And most of them believe in this mission. I've got little sympathy the consequences faced by stupid people when they make stupid decisions. We have to support them. If we don't support them we go to prison for income tax evasion. by letting them finish it. Finish what? The mission changes every six months. They finished what they could finish in April of 2003. Everything since then has been a misapplication of military force. This Viet Namish defeatism is so out of line and it disgusts me. Well, that's reality for ya! PS. I don't care what anyone says, it's these ultra left wingers sabotage that kill more soldiers than anybody. So they are put IEDs in Iraq, eh? This is stupid. They give moral support to the enemy, and encourages them to keep fighting. Every time these idiots get their message aired it is immediatelyy spread throught the middle east. They hear them.... When a US soldier kills a Muslim his family has an moral obligation to avenge his death. This cultural fact is what sustains the insurgency. They don't care what we think. They only care about what we do. Seek medical help. Disagree with the policy but let our men and women win! They already did. Two years ago. They can win at defeating a military. They can't win at imposing a new government or ending a resistance to an occupation. And we should be winning this one by a lot larger margin than we are now. How the heck do you measure the margin? That's illogical. Pulling out early will be the worst outcome. Ask any of your Vietnamese neighbors.... They'll tell you. OK. I'm sorry. The truth is that this statement is fucking stupid. Those who had a negative outcome from the US withdrawal from Vietnam were all murdered by the winning side within weeks. It isn't possible to talk to them. If you choose to speak to the survivors who made it here, I think you'd find many of them reticent to offer an opinion on American withdrawal. There's much ambivalence about the whole thing that I don't think you are grasping. The goal in Vietnam was for the US military to defeat communism in Vietnam. The US military failed at this impossible mission. Despite this failure, communism has been defeated in Vietnam. It would have been better for all involved if none of the western powers had ever gotten involved. Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 10:57:14 GMT -5
Historical perspective time! More like Kentucky Fried History time. How "pussy" would it have been to say in 1945, "Okay, we ended the 3rd Reich, but since this your land and we haven't planted any flags here, why don't you Europeans just take it from here? I can't speak intelligently about the pussiness of certain actions, but I pretty sure that the whole thing had nothing to do with courage. It was all about protecting American interests and extending the benefits of the wartime socialism experiment to others. The right thing to do - the honorable thing to do - would have been to say - mission accomplished - you take it from here. Your arrogance about their inability to do so is just silly nationalism. To be sure, the Cold War didn't take a lot of lives, but it damn sure took a lot of money. Plus, there was no timetable for withdrawal. Withdrawal (from Berlin, at least) came AFTER the threat of Soviet aggression had evaporated. I believe history has already vindicated each successive President for staying the course. That sacrifice was worth it. So you say. I disagree. There was no need to defeat communism. It collapsed just fine on its own. The whole thing was a colossal waste of money and an unnessary taking of American liberty. Go back another century to the Civil War. It sure wasn't very popular at the beginning with the Union forces getting their asses handed to them by the Confederates. Nor was it particularly popular when things slowly turned around in the Union's favor while men were still dying and brother was still fighting brother. It was only AFTER the conclusion of the war that Lincoln was vindicated for staying the course. That sacrifice was worth it. So you say. I disagree. The entire thing was a massive waste of human lives and tons of money. And it irreparably terminated the American experiment with liberty. Everything wrong with USA today stems from Lincoln's evil decision to go to war to compel states to remain in what was conceived as a voluntary union. Go back yet another century to the Revolutionary War. George Washington had a ragtag bunch of fighters who weren't really winning the war against the British ( geez, how long did that war drag on?). The "nation" was divided back then (Loyalists -- remember those guys?). I can reasonably assume that there were quite a few people back then who wondered what the point of it all was. But through all the adversity Washington pressed on (I suppose you could call it * gasp!* pride). Because he pressed on -- and with the timely help of the French (who were the good guys back then) -- we have this nation today that guarantees the right of weak-stomached people to speak their minds. So, of course, AFTER the conclusion of the war Washington was vindicated for staying the course. That sacrifice was definitely worth it. It would be wonderfully conducive to the future of Iraq if the freedom fighters opposing the occupation of that country were to drawn some inspiration from this historical event. Maybe it would lead them back to a respect for human liberty. I agree that the fighting of this war was worth it. It remains the only justifiable one in American history. It's a shame that, in the long run, little good came from it. Vietnam is a doesn't even deserve to be compared here. There was no political will to actually WIN that war. That's how come people were dying needlessly: because they died in the ABSENCE of a pursuit of total victory. Really, the same thing is true of Korea with that "police action" nonsense. MacArthur said it best: "In war, there is no substitute for victory." If you fight a war without the aim or the will to win, then you have died for nothing. That's the defintion of an unneeded death. Vietnam is the ideal comparison to Iraq. Both were waged to fight an -ism. Both gave an impossible mission to the US military. Both were initiated without just cause. Other than time and numbers, they are perfect parallels. Saying that the US lacked the political will to win Vietnam is a load of propaganda rubbish. What was lacking was a willingness to commit genocide in pursuit of an inane definition of victory. Hopefully, Iraq will go the same way. Bottom line: you can't have victory without sacrifice. Explain India. Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 10:59:32 GMT -5
The cost of cutting and running is HUGE! Really, what is it and how does it compare to the cost of staying? Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 11:11:47 GMT -5
Only two of our nation's wars ever involved "direct defense": War of 1812 and the Pacific Theater of WWII (Wake Island, Philippines, etc.) LOL. I don't think so. The War of 1812 started as a US invasion of Canada. The British defended themselves just fine but then got a little cocky about teaching us a lesson. We lucked out there. The War of 1812 was a war of US aggression. Once the greatest generation is gone and the real history can be discussed intelligently without people getting worked up about it, it will be clear that the Pacific Theater of WWII was little more than a regional struggle for dominance. The USA stupidly and arrogantly entered that struggle on its own choice in 1898. Pearl Harbor was just another battle in an ongoing war that vacillates between hot and cold periods. Defending previously conquered territory only qualifies as defense if that territory is officially incorporated into the conquering nation. It wasn't. WWII was not a just war of self defense by any stretch of the imagination. Joe
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 26, 2005 11:13:44 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that no one today can say that any of those wars should have been cut back because of the high cost in money and lives I say so. I read lots of books that say so. Joe
|
|
|
Post by journeytoarcana on Aug 26, 2005 11:48:45 GMT -5
The War of 1812 started as a US invasion of Canada. The British defended themselves just fine but then got a little cocky about teaching us a lesson. We lucked out there. The War of 1812 was a war of US aggression.
Ladies and gentlemen ... we have a history geek in the house. This is a little known fact about the War of 1812 that many people forget. Everyone remembers that this war gave us the Star Spangled Banner, but little else.
Once the greatest generation is gone and the real history can be discussed intelligently without people getting worked up about it, it will be clear that the Pacific Theater of WWII was little more than a regional struggle for dominance. The USA stupidly and arrogantly entered that struggle on its own choice in 1898. Pearl Harbor was just another battle in an ongoing war that vacillates between hot and cold periods. Defending previously conquered territory only qualifies as defense if that territory is officially incorporated into the conquering nation. It wasn't. WWII was not a just war of self defense by any stretch of the imagination.
And the lessons from 1898 could have and should have been used in our struggle against Vietnam as well. They weren't.
I also wonder ... has anyone read about what happened when England tried to instill democracy in Iraq in the 1920's? More history "lessens" to be learned.
The "greatest generation" ... I thought I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
jta
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Aug 26, 2005 17:03:28 GMT -5
Joex and JTA, thank you for coming to my rescue...LOL! Been getting ganged up on pretty good here. Just kiddin'... I like these debates even if I'm outnumbered. The difference here is these guys can debate without getting silly and childish like some other boards. Having said that, I'm glad you're on my side Joex...the others are lacing up their gloves right now... #box2# Seth
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Aug 26, 2005 18:17:41 GMT -5
More like Kentucky Fried History time. I'm sorry, all the KFC's I've been to in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania don't sell history books. Do any of the ones where YOU live sell books? I can't speak intelligently about the pussiness of certain actions, but I pretty sure that the whole thing had nothing to do with courage. I believe a little consistency is called for here. If you can't speak intelligently about the pussiness of certain actions, then it stands to reason that you can't intelligently assert that the "whole thing" had nothing to do with courage. It was all about protecting American interests and extending the benefits of the wartime socialism experiment to others. The right thing to do - the honorable thing to do - would have been to say - mission accomplished - you take it from here. Your arrogance about their inability to do so is just silly nationalism. Can't disagree with you about preserving American interests. However, you make it sound as if it were a bad thing. That's fine if you have that opinion. I happen to think that it is a good thing to preserve our (inter)national interests. I also disagree with you about what constitutes the "right" or "honorable" thing to do. I think it is both "right" and "honorable" to help rebuild a defeated country - especially when we contributed so much to their devastation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that concept is very similar to that of restitution.
Be careful that you don't read too much into what other people write. I never said the Europeans couldn't rebuild without our help. I believe my exact words were, "...helping you guys stabilize yourselves." That's not the same as assuming an inability. If you've ever watched football or other sports you'll often see one player helping a fallen player get up to his/her feet. Does that automatically mean that the Good Samaritan player arrogantly assumed that the fallen player had an inability to get up? Of course not!So you say. I disagree. There was no need to defeat communism. It collapsed just fine on its own. The whole thing was a colossal waste of money and an unnessary taking of American liberty. You disagree NOW. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt you would have had that same sentiment 25 years ago. It wasn't forseeable by anybody that the Soviet Union would implode before the year 2000. I'm quite sure that many many Americans saw a need to defeat communism when Kruschev famously declared, "We will bury you!" Did a history buff like yourself conveniently overlook issues like the Cuban Missile Crisis that helped feed the "Red Scare"? The point is that only AFTER the dissolution of communism can some people look back and assert that it was all a waste. If you can somehow prove that Reagan's doctrine did in NO WAY NO HOW accelerate or contribute to the collapse of communism, then I just might believe that the prosecution of the Cold War was a colossal waste.So you say. I disagree. The entire thing was a massive waste of human lives and tons of money. And it irreparably terminated the American experiment with liberty. Everything wrong with USA today stems from Lincoln's evil decision to go to war to compel states to remain in what was conceived as a voluntary union. YOWZA! Do you always paint with such broad strokes? "Everything wrong"? Wow! I suppose, then, that among those "wrong" things in the USA stemming from Lincoln's "evil decison" are the abolishment of slavery (13th Amendment) and the guarantee of "one-person/one-vote" (15th and 19th Amendments). Okay, I concede that the Civil War was about states' rights, but what issue served as the impetus for those states exercising their right to secede? It would be wonderfully conducive to the future of Iraq if the freedom fighters opposing the occupation of that country were to drawn some inspiration from this historical event. Maybe it would lead them back to a respect for human liberty. I agree that the fighting of this war was worth it. It remains the only justifiable one in American history. It's a shame that, in the long run, little good came from it. What....it wasn't justifiable to defeat Nazism?Vietnam is the ideal comparison to Iraq. Both were waged to fight an -ism. Both gave an impossible mission to the US military. Both were initiated without just cause. Other than time and numbers, they are perfect parallels. Saying that the US lacked the political will to win Vietnam is a load of propaganda rubbish. What was lacking was a willingness to commit genocide in pursuit of an inane definition of victory. Hopefully, Iraq will go the same way. I suppose you could make the case that any of our wars could be an "ideal comparsion" to Iraq. How many wars were waged against an -ism? Well, there's expansion-ism, secession-ism, imperial-ism, fasc-ism, commun-ism, ad nauseum(-ism...hehe:D). How many were initiated without just cause? Well, opinions differ as to what exactly constitutes a just cause - hell, even the Revolutionary War (your justifiable one) could be considered unjust (i.e., rebellion against the Crown). How many had a supposed impossible mission to the military? The Revolutionary War, for one (couldn't have been won without timely French assistance).
What constitutes a lack of political backbone in my mind is the refusal to allow the military to properly prosecute a war. In Vietnam, for example, we weren't allowed to fight the Viet Cong beyond the borders of South Vietnam. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was quite effective against us because of this policy. We didn't have to commit genocide to get the job done, we just needed the military to not be so encumbered with ridiculous rules of engagement. It amazes me that you paint all that as propagandic rubbish.Short, simple, easy. Sacrifice is a general term that does not necessarily mean death.
|
|
spyder
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
mary had a little lamb and the doctor fainted.
Posts: 517
|
Post by spyder on Aug 26, 2005 18:30:27 GMT -5
Joex and JTA, thank you for coming to my rescue...LOL! Been getting ganged up on pretty good here. Having said that, I'm glad you're on my side Joex...the others are lacing up their gloves right now... #box2# Seth no one is ganging up. just rattling our g'damn heads. and about picking sides? i believe we're all on the same side, we just have different opinions. thank goodness we live somewhere that we can enjoy that freedom.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Aug 26, 2005 20:35:39 GMT -5
no one is ganging up. just rattling our g'damn heads. and about picking sides? i believe we're all on the same side, we just have different opinions. thank goodness we live somewhere that we can enjoy that freedom. Out of anybody on this board(well, maybe not anybody) you should know I'm just playin'. This is the best message board I've been on and you guys are like my second family(OK, gay as all hell...but kinda true... #whistler#). I'm not here to fight, while this particular subject may be very serious...I prefer friendly debate over arguments any day. #cheers# #hardrock# Seth
|
|
Joe-×
Simple Human http://www.fat
Posts: 50
|
Post by Joe-× on Aug 27, 2005 17:24:03 GMT -5
Self interest is a normal human trait. In moderation, there's probably nothing wrong with it. I was merely pointing out that America didn't stay in Europe after WWII because of some kind of courageous altruism. I guess I'm just more of a non-interventionist. There's nothing wrong with helping a friend experiencing unjustice, but I think it's unsound foreign policy (http://www.fff.org/comment/AdamsPolicy.asp) to start solving problems before they affect us. I think that open and free trade is the best way to preserve our national and international interests. I feel the same way. Had that been the limit of our European involvement, it would have been fine. These are good examples. Had you expressed these I would have thought them to be fine. They are good sentiments, but they don't reflect the reality of American involvement in Europe. Ludwig Von Mises - www.mises.org/Americans are notoriously stupid. In fact, all of humanity is generally stupid. I'm generally stupid about most stuff. The insignificant quantity of knowledge that I possess leads me to think that there's no reason to defeat bad ideas. Left alone they will all die on their own. I don't think that assessment requires any kind of rare insight or anything. I think most people know it instinctively. People just lose track of it when they get all wrapped in the emotions caused by fear and other things. Some things take time to learn. When that funny crackpot lil kim makes similar statements, we have the experience to just laugh it off. I agree. Some people are unable to shed their irrational fears even when confronted by facts. I'm not interested in proving a negative. I've never seen any evidence to convince me that the Reagan doctrine made a difference. Most of what I've heard and read is happy partisan horse manure. Most of what I've read about WWIII leads me to think that our participation in it wasn't necessary, but I'm always open to new information. Sure, when something is a moral issue, it's a binary thing. It's either right or wrong. All of one or all of the other. Something can't be partially or mostly moral. It's an all or nothing thing. A war is either just or unjust. I realize that this opinion is most unwelcome in a mostly relativized world. Such is life. They don't stem from Lincoln's decision to go to war. Lincoln did not go to war for those things. He wasn't interested in any of them. Lincoln's decision was a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln's decision was a complete rejection of the principles that created the USA. Jefferson (just one example among many) believed that people had a natural right to self-determine their own government. Lincoln disagreed. Lincoln rejected natural law. Lincoln rejected the idea that man was made free by God to organize themselves as they saw fit. This is the reason that I call it evil. Had he been a moral person who believed in the idea of human freedom, he would have let the south leave the voluntary union peacefully. He didn't. He wasn't. That's the fact of 1861. Later actions done by others after him can't undo or mitigate that wrong. The rest of the civilized world was able to end slavery without having to kill 620,000 of its citizens. Slavery would have died on its own eventually. It wasn't economically feasible. The 13th Amendment suffers from other flaws. First off, the means of its passage was anti-American and un-Constitutional. Second off, it wasn't passed out of love for the slave. It was passed out of hatred for the south. The military conquest of the south was not enough to satisfy the lust of the Unionists. What was required was its utter destruction. The purpose of the 13th amendment was to see to that destruction. Read the writings and early amendment drafts from its psychopathic author. The yankees believed deeply in their own superiority, but the facts on the ground proved otherwise. The purpose of the 13th amendment was to destroy southern culture and its natural American aristocracy. Rationality its existence now because of the positive good of freeing slaves doesn't change the malice that provoked it. I don't think too highly of either of those two amendments. There isn't agreement on the subject among those who voted to secede. Many were motivated by the protection of the institution of slavery. Many more were motivated by the protection of the southern economy from rapacious northern tariff policy. It was a mix of issues - to summarize it all as a single issue might work in a public school, but educated people should know better. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that, regardless of motivation, it was perfectly legal for the states to secede. The war was only necessary because Lincoln and the radical Republicans refused to surrender the tariff money. It wasn't necessary. Fascism was merely one brand of Socialism. It would have died just fine on its own. Eventually, it will die off here also. I don't think so. Vietnam is the parallel. Maybe Korea too in the initial decision to enter the war, but not in its execution or outcome. Very few. Most have been about money. In that way, Vietnam does differ from Iraq. Wars are always initiated without just cause. Every single one of them. There is no exception. There can be no exception. It isn't possible. That isn't to say that a nation's entry into a war already initiated by another nation is always unjust. The people of the US had a right to throw off the old government and form a new one. That right is unalienable. When the British, like Lincoln, decided to prevent a group of people from exercising their natural rights by coercively compelling them to remain in a union no longer desired, the seceding members had a right to defend their new country. The only just causes for war in American history was the cause of the newly independent colonists and the cause of the Confederacy. That's debatable for me. Pure hokum. Where do you get this stuff? Same thing. It is what it is. The military faces the same problem in Iraq. The problem is identifying the enemy. Identifying the tactics of the enemy isn't the same thing. You've got to isolate individuals. In both situations, it isn't possible - the enemy is the entire people. To a large degree, the entire country is mobilized in opposition to the occupation. Some chunk of the people are willing to do it thru political crap; some chunk of the people are willing to do it thru active, violent resistance; many are just willing to wait it out though they might be persuaded to assist the politicians or resistors. What is inane is the belief that a resistance (however well organized or not) can be defeated by military force. It isn't possible. The organizing power of the resistance is not matter, it is ideas. You can't blow up ideas. You have to let the bad ones die on their own. The resistance can't be destroyed - it can only decay and wither away from within. Imperial armies will continue to lose as long as they ignore this long-established, often-proven fact. There is not nor ever will be an army capable of terrorizing or shocking and awe-ing away the will of a people yearning to be free. Fourth generation wars of self-defense end when the invader withdraws. In light of history, it is pure idiocy to think otherwise.
|
|