Mike - my question is pretty simple.
Find me an example of an imperialist power who was successful in maintaining control over a native population during the twentieth century.
Now, I've bookmarked the URL you posted above - always willing to read a variety of opinions. I don't think that Iraq quaifies as a "small" war, particularly since you have stated on a number of occassions that you regard it as merely a base from which to conduct other/additional operations against other countries.
I was hardly suprised to read this in one of the reviews of a book you would recommend:
Quote:
|
Mr. Boot's analysis and conclusions as to why these wars were fought is at best naive; indicating an infantile patriotic myopia that severely clouds his judgment as a historian.
|
BTW ... about your comment that
Quote:
|
the stain had not [a]ffected the weak kneed cowards that prevail and scream that every conflict we get into is another Vietnam
|
Funny you should continue the recitiation of the catechism you started in the Stratfor thread. There are a number of reasons that I think the Bush policy in Iraq is tremendously damaging to the long term interests of the United States. Believe it or not, weak kneed cowardice has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Just to use one example - when Nixon sent U.S. troops into Cambodia in 1970, the country exploded. While it may be easier on the brain to conclude that was all the response of "weak kneed cowards", you are forgetting that many of the people outraged DIDN'T BELIEVE A FUCKING WORD that came out of Washington regarding the war, because there had been a steady stream of lies for six years from two successive Administrations.
The lies this administration has told to get us into this war threaten the credibility of the government - and that could come back to haunt us in the very real war with terror that we will have to fight.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 19 2004, 10:23 AM