But it has been done successfully.

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #8,550 by marlowe 9/12/01 10:36:43 AM Reply	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]
Post #8,574 by boxley 9/12/01 11:28:37 AM Reply	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
Post #8,589 by hnick 9/12/01 11:58:43 AM Reply	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) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:13:30 PM EDT

f**king troll - (Silverlock) - (5) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:21:23 PM EDT

Brilliant answer - (bluke) - (4) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:23:24 PM EDT

You want to know why? - (Silverlock) - (3) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:46:09 PM EDT

I am just pointing out... - (bluke) - (1) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:52:47 PM EDT

The brush you paint with is too broad - (Silverlock) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:59:31 PM EDT

err, bluke aint here he is at ground zero although - (boxley) - Sept. 11, 2001, 07:45:40 PM EDT

sure, let's roll over cry "please don't hurt us again" - (SpiceWare) - (1) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:25:10 PM EDT

What makes you better then the terrorist - (bluke) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:31:26 PM EDT

Right where it should be - (wharris2) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:26:12 PM EDT

Going out on a limb... - (jbrabeck) - (9) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:37:52 PM EDT

You have the Middle East facts wrong - (bluke) - (5) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:40:04 PM EDT

Thanks for the clarification - (drewk) - (4) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:51:03 PM EDT

Of course not - (bluke) - (3) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:55:38 PM EDT

Minister of Peace - (jbrabeck) - (2) - Sept. 11, 2001, 04:03:14 PM EDT

And why not? - (bluke) - (1) - Sept. 12, 2001, 03:12:12 AM EDT

It's too soon, bl.. cool it. - (Ashton) - Sept. 12, 2001, 06:54:15 AM EDT

Um, Japan was ready to surrender b4 the nukes. - (mmoffitt) - (2) - Sept. 11, 2001, 04:23:04 PM EDT

Re: Um, Japan was ready to surrender b4 the nukes. - (jbrabeck) - Sept. 11, 2001, 04:44:55 PM EDT

That's a Toland apologist answer - (wharris2) - Sept. 11, 2001, 04:47:24 PM EDT

I'll settle for plain murder. - (addison) - (16) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:38:49 PM EDT

War crimes - (bluke) - (15) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:43:53 PM EDT

You're flat wrong. - (addison) - (13) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:51:51 PM EDT

Not a war crime to slaughter babies? - (marlowe) - Sept. 11, 2001, 07:46:54 PM EDT

Did you read the Geneva Convention - (bluke) - (11) - Sept. 12, 2001, 02:50:13 AM EDT

So why is Israel violating it? -NT - (addison) - (10) - Sept. 12, 2001, 09:06:29 AM EDT

How exactly is Israel violating the Geneva Convention? - (bluke) - (7) - Sept. 12, 2001, 09:13:16 AM EDT

That's interesting - (drewk) - (6) - Sept. 12, 2001, 09:46:43 AM EDT

Don't be perfectionist. - (marlowe) - Sept. 12, 2001, 01:54:21 PM EDT

Don't be ridiculous - (bluke) - (4) - Sept. 12, 2001, 10:24:17 PM EDT

Make up your mind. - (addison) - (3) - Sept. 12, 2001, 10:33:25 PM EDT

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited - (bluke) - (2) - Sept. 13, 2001, 05:45:29 AM EDT

Which is why . . - (Andrew Grygus) - Sept. 13, 2001, 08:22:47 AM EDT

Re: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited - (addison) - Sept. 13, 2001, 10:00:20 AM EDT

What is the relevence here - (bluke) - (1) - Sept. 12, 2001, 09:15:21 AM EDT

You don't know the meaning of the word "relevance". - (addison) - Sept. 12, 2001, 11:12:03 AM EDT

Venting anger... - (ChrisR) - Sept. 11, 2001, 04:08:48 PM EDT

Look at yourself for a moment - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - Sept. 11, 2001, 03:56:41 PM EDT

Actually I am in the same boat - (bluke) - Sept. 11, 2001, 10:29:23 PM EDT

Define "restraint." - (marlowe) - (5) - Sept. 11, 2001, 05:21:13 PM EDT

And another thing. - (marlowe) - Sept. 11, 2001, 05:28:21 PM EDT

Errm... About taking their country over.... - (hnick) - (3) - Sept. 11, 2001, 07:57:11 PM EDT

But it has been done successfully. - (marlowe) - (2) - Sept. 12, 2001, 10:36:43 AM EDT

not afganistan, lose big time - (boxley) - Sept. 12, 2001, 11:28:37 AM EDT

Not recently - (hnick) - Sept. 12, 2001, 11:58:43 AM EDT

Don't touch it, it's excrement.
118 ms