IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Errm... About taking their country over....
That puts us fighting a guerrila war on the oppositions home turf. When the opposition has outside supply. (I'm assuming one Islamic bunch or another, could easily be wrong, but if right...)
Been there, done that... we lost that also.
So far, everyone with access to triggers has taken a deep breath and is checking the situation. I thought we (the U.S.) would be in a shooting war before dinner. I am relieved and guardedly optimistic since I haven't eaten yet. It would be ever so nice if we knew who we were about to eradicate and why with some certainy before we embark whatever revenge we select.
My thoughts about the instigators is that such people should be stopped and the practice discouraged. Massively. There are no pretty ways of doing this. There are effective ways that don't involve nukes. It's an awefully tough call. But if the call is made, I would hope that we do not spend the lives of our troops in a stupid hopeless war, just to make it look 'fair'; just do it with the maximum efficiency. But we really should be sure about who the real target is before doing something drastic, even if it makes it a little late for the five o'clock news.

gods, this sucks,
Hugh
New But it has been done successfully.
It was done all the time in the 19th century. It's simply a matter of being clear and resolved in one's intent, and not screwing up. These are the factors that were lacking when we went into Vietnam.

Extreme example: at one point even the French were able to more or less own Indochina.

If we go into Afghanistan, hardly anybody is going to go "One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?" They'll all know damn well what we're fighting for. Personal safety. There's nothing abstract and geopolitical about that smoking wreckage downtown.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
New not afganistan, lose big time
even john bull got his ass handed to him. We should go in and out with impunity but to occupy? couldnt be done, rephrase couldnt be held for long.
thanx,
bill
why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them?
Randy Wayne White
New Not recently
Once the locals have the ablilty to be suitably supplied from a resource that is safe from invaders, they have pretty much got it made from a guerrilla warfare standpoint.
The French in indochina did rather well as long as the contest was trained soldiers against rubber workers with parangs. Once the Soviet Union and China started supplying indochina, the French got their clock cleaned.
Without a reasonable means of interdicting military supplies (which we don't have) or stopping the source (again, I don't think so), we end up with a long guerrilla war which we will probably lose, as long as we try to occupy their country.
As long as we have no use for the land or the occupants, the Carthage treatment is technically feasable. Whether it is necessary or desirable is a different discussion.

-Hugh
     The response here: Lets commit War Crimes - (bluke) - (44)
         f**king troll - (Silverlock) - (5)
             Brilliant answer - (bluke) - (4)
                 You want to know why? - (Silverlock) - (3)
                     I am just pointing out... - (bluke) - (1)
                         The brush you paint with is too broad - (Silverlock)
                     err, bluke aint here he is at ground zero although - (boxley)
         sure, let's roll over cry "please don't hurt us again" - (SpiceWare) - (1)
             What makes you better then the terrorist - (bluke)
         Right where it should be - (wharris2)
         Going out on a limb... - (jbrabeck) - (9)
             You have the Middle East facts wrong - (bluke) - (5)
                 Thanks for the clarification - (drewk) - (4)
                     Of course not - (bluke) - (3)
                         Minister of Peace - (jbrabeck) - (2)
                             And why not? - (bluke) - (1)
                                 It's too soon, bl.. cool it. - (Ashton)
             Um, Japan was ready to surrender b4 the nukes. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                 Re: Um, Japan was ready to surrender b4 the nukes. - (jbrabeck)
                 That's a Toland apologist answer - (wharris2)
         I'll settle for plain murder. - (addison) - (16)
             War crimes - (bluke) - (15)
                 You're flat wrong. - (addison) - (13)
                     Not a war crime to slaughter babies? - (marlowe)
                     Did you read the Geneva Convention - (bluke) - (11)
                         So why is Israel violating it? -NT - (addison) - (10)
                             How exactly is Israel violating the Geneva Convention? - (bluke) - (7)
                                 That's interesting - (drewk) - (6)
                                     Don't be perfectionist. - (marlowe)
                                     Don't be ridiculous - (bluke) - (4)
                                         Make up your mind. - (addison) - (3)
                                             Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited - (bluke) - (2)
                                                 Which is why . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                 Re: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited - (addison)
                             What is the relevence here - (bluke) - (1)
                                 You don't know the meaning of the word "relevance". - (addison)
                 Venting anger... - (ChrisR)
         Look at yourself for a moment - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
             Actually I am in the same boat - (bluke)
         Define "restraint." - (marlowe) - (5)
             And another thing. - (marlowe)
             Errm... About taking their country over.... - (hnick) - (3)
                 But it has been done successfully. - (marlowe) - (2)
                     not afganistan, lose big time - (boxley)
                     Not recently - (hnick)

I'm paraphrasing, because it's easier than research.
64 ms