phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
They still got it from us. A Japanese man was studying in the US, then brought it to Japan in the 1800's...
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
VICTORY in IRAQ?? What is Victory?? Is there any substitute for VICTORY??
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
The same way "victory" is always defined in a counter-insurgency - when the populace is no longer willing to provide aid and comfort to the insurgents.
As Americans, we'd rather that be becuase they hate the enemy and love us, but is that really necessary? The man on the street is ultimately a realist. If he will no longer hide an insurgent arms cache, or is reporting a bomb plot, or whatever, because he feels the insurgency is impotent and fears the government, it's really a wash to us.
As Americans, we'd rather that be becuase they hate the enemy and love us, but is that really necessary? The man on the street is ultimately a realist. If he will no longer hide an insurgent arms cache, or is reporting a bomb plot, or whatever, because he feels the insurgency is impotent and fears the government, it's really a wash to us.
You've come closer to "reality" than some of the "dreamers & wishful thinkers" on this site ...
Someone had similar thoughts on the CBU thread (which split into this one): "It's always ultimately your own self-interest".
*EDIT*
That kinda sounds vaguely familiar when describing the Baghdad man-on-the-streeet: kinda like the situation when Saddam and his brood were in power, yea-as ... ????Uncle Fester said:
Saddam Hussein = Who's Sane ??? Middle East, style at any rate.
AJB37
Well-Known Member
Here is an article that pertains to the winning hearts and minds discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02singer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02singer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
You didn't get laid? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
In all seriousness, your first post was well put and thought-provoking.
What is victory? Or winning? I think MB had it pretty good, but what do you define it as?
VIZKRIEG
KILL
I concur with MB's definitions. They are very well thought out and logical. My post was more in response to the peace vice victory debate a few posts prior. In essence, though they are by definition, not the same, it is my opinion that without one, the other cannot exist in that region. I'm obviously no expert, but that is my perception.
m0tbaillie
Former SWO
Are you implying that only conservatives (read: republicans) join the military?
m0tbaillie
Former SWO
I only drew such parallels because he implied that being liberal meant being anti-military in general.
Now, on to my actual answer: I genuinely don't believe that there will ever be such a thing as "victory" in Iraq. The problem is such that we no longer has a clear, defined enemy and, as previously mentioned, the members of the "insurgency" fluctuate daily. One day they're our friends, the next they're out enemy.
When Bremmer came in and disbanded the military during his de-Baathification, he put hundreds of thousands of people out of work overnight in order to "start over from scratch". That, I believe, was a very fatal mistake and he should have simply cherry-picked key elements to remove and let the rest of the infrastructure of the country do it's thing. I am of the opinion that there would not have been an insurgency if we hadn't fired a couple hundred thousand people overnight who could have literally rectified the country within months, being in the positions that they were.
PURELY hypothetically-speaking, imagine if tomorrow China invaded the continental United States. Regardless of the amount of devastation they were to inflict, do you really think the American people would give up and roll over regardless of how long the conflict went on? Do you think we as a nation would be open and willing to simply rolling over and conforming to a Marxist-socialist system of government? Very doubtful. Hell, I can hear some of you stroking you guns merely reading this post.
There's your answer right there. You can overthrow tangible entities of government overnight, because we've done it. You cannot, however, magically change the mind of an entire populace whose country you just overtook by force and expect that they will suddenly shower you in rose petals. Cute idea, but frankly it is wholly unrealistic and is simply a matter of differeing ideals and values that have been fundamentally the same for a thousand years.
I don't think anyone expects them to 'roll over' and submit to a completely American way of life. We need to be there to assist in re-establishing their economy and infrastructure.
I also agree with MB's (well, not HIS idea but..) idea of establishing a permanent foothold there just like we did with Germany and Japan. With the current situation in the Middle East, things could get very bad very fast; and having a major American presence in the area non-stop behooves us from political, economic, and (some, including myself believe) theological perspectives. MHO - of course, not that I've said anything ground-breakingly original
I also agree with MB's (well, not HIS idea but..) idea of establishing a permanent foothold there just like we did with Germany and Japan. With the current situation in the Middle East, things could get very bad very fast; and having a major American presence in the area non-stop behooves us from political, economic, and (some, including myself believe) theological perspectives. MHO - of course, not that I've said anything ground-breakingly original
I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the theological perspective. As we aren't in the missionary business, I don't get it it.