Since you’ve chosen to go back to the cold war…how about a list of all the countires which became peaceful and modern democracies after Soviet intervention during the same time period?
And how many of those same countries are democracies now?
1979- we were not at war with Afghanistan. You better check your facts. I’d say we won.
1980-1990- Salvador? The Soviets lost this one as well. Nicaragua? Not on your list, but same thing.
How many countries on that list still have a Communist or Communist backed government?
[quote]kamui wrote:
cause it worked so very well in :
-1950-1953 Korea
-1958 Indonesia
-1960 Guatemala
-1961 Cuba
-1961-1972 Vietnam
-1964 Congo
-1965 Perou
-1973 Chili
-1979 Afghanistan
-1980-1990 Salvador
-1986 Lybia
-1990-91 Irak
-1993-1994 Somalia
-2001-2010 Afghanistan
-2003-2010 Irak
all of these countries became good, peaceful and modern democracies after US interventions…
maybe you should try and win at least 1 war before starting another one.
[/quote]
Ummm Chile, South Korea, Indonesia, and Vietnam are all good, peaceful, friendly places.
Secondly it isn’t so much about turning a country into a democracy as forcing countries to behave. And they tend to on the international front a lot more these days because they know they will get smacked around if they don’t.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If you were in charge, you would have asked nicely right after this whole thing went down. Ahmadijenad would have said no, you would have bombed Tehran and those hikers’ throats would have been slit. As it stands now, the hikers are still alive. With your plan, they would have been dead long ago. You’re a fucking idiot. I can’t believe you’re a teacher.[/quote]
Hard to say actually. If they knew he was serious about bombing them if they didn’t return the hostages then 99/100 they would return them if their was a way to do so without losing face.
Contrary to popular opinion, threat of force often works. Of course it might not work if Ahmadijenad is actually crazy.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If you were in charge, you would have asked nicely right after this whole thing went down. Ahmadijenad would have said no, you would have bombed Tehran and those hikers’ throats would have been slit. As it stands now, the hikers are still alive. With your plan, they would have been dead long ago. You’re a fucking idiot. I can’t believe you’re a teacher.[/quote]
Hard to say actually. If they knew he was serious about bombing them if they didn’t return the hostages then 99/100 they would return them if their was a way to do so without losing face.
Contrary to popular opinion, threat of force often works. Of course it might not work if Ahmadijenad is actually crazy.[/quote]
Threat of bombing doesn’t work that well with people who think if they die at the hands of America they’ll get 72 virgins in heaven or whatever the hell it is they believe. And believe me, Ahmadijenad is definitely that 1/100 who won’t care.
If you were in charge, you would have asked nicely right after this whole thing went down. Ahmadijenad would have said no, you would have bombed Tehran and those hikers’ throats would have been slit. As it stands now, the hikers are still alive. With your plan, they would have been dead long ago. You’re a fucking idiot. I can’t believe you’re a teacher.[/quote]
Nope. They’d have been released by now. When your capital city is in flames and more is on the way, you either cooperate or get twice as much next time.
You don’t get rid of evil by appeasing it…ask our resident Austrian, or any Czech.
[quote]Since you’ve chosen to go back to the cold war…how about a list of all the countires which became peaceful and modern democracies after Soviet intervention during the same time period?
And how many of those same countries are democracies now?[/quote]
My point is that US bombs repeatedly failed to spread liberty and democracy.
the fact that the Soviets bombs repeatedly failed to spread equality and social justice doesn’t contradict this point. In fact, it reinforce it.
Bombing the Third World doesn’t work.
[quote]
1979- we were not at war with Afghanistan. You better check your facts. I’d say we won.[/quote]
you weren’t at war with Afghanistan, you were at war IN afghanistan. and you won so well it created huge problems that remain unsolved to this day.
[quote]
How many countries on that list still have a Communist or Communist backed government?[/quote]
you stil think Communism has been gloriously defeated in 1989 ?
more than 25% of the world population still live in a communist country. and it won’t end anytime soon.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Since you’ve chosen to go back to the cold war…how about a list of all the countires which became peaceful and modern democracies after Soviet intervention during the same time period?
And how many of those same countries are democracies now?
1979- we were not at war with Afghanistan. You better check your facts. I’d say we won.
1980-1990- Salvador? The Soviets lost this one as well. Nicaragua? Not on your list, but same thing.
How many countries on that list still have a Communist or Communist backed government? [/quote]
That almost looks like nation building does not work, no matter how far one is willing to go.
Shockingly, that would suggest that some things cannot be achived by violent means.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If you were in charge, you would have asked nicely right after this whole thing went down. Ahmadijenad would have said no, you would have bombed Tehran and those hikers’ throats would have been slit. As it stands now, the hikers are still alive. With your plan, they would have been dead long ago. You’re a fucking idiot. I can’t believe you’re a teacher.[/quote]
Hard to say actually. If they knew he was serious about bombing them if they didn’t return the hostages then 99/100 they would return them if their was a way to do so without losing face.
Contrary to popular opinion, threat of force often works. Of course it might not work if Ahmadijenad is actually crazy.[/quote]
Doesmt matter what he is because he has very little to say in important matters.
[quote]kamui wrote:
My point is that US bombs repeatedly failed to spread liberty and democracy.[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t worth it. Our policy should be one of having a VERY high threshold when it comes to using military force. However, once we have crossed that threshold, we should annihilate our enemy (unless he surrenders in the short time he has managed to stay alive). We should use as little force as needed, but also as much as needed. Then we come home and let the survivors build their own bridges and schools. Rinse and repeat as needed. Not a dime to reconstruction.
Violence “works” if you would act like Rome, not pretend to be Rome.
A 9/11 against Rome would mean the destruction of the Kaaba, crucifiction and enslavement of untold thousands of muslims. It “works” because the spoils are great and the enemy is broken.
So what does this mean:
[quote][…]
once we have crossed that threshold, we should annihilate our enemy […][/quote]
So you wouldn’t nationbuild, right?
And you wouldn’t have marched into Saddam’s palace (no threshold whatsoever crossed).
But Afganistan would be a nuclear waste?
One can discuss if putting Carthage to the sword was sensible, however, but I really don’t know how total annihilation works in a 9/11 context. (Only nuking Hamburg & Waziristan??)
In today’s world, you can not act like Rome. If you invade any country, someone will arm an insurgency to attack you. Exterminating people can not work. Look at places like Afghanistan (when the Soviets invaded) they slaughtered millions and achieved nothing. They did the same in Chechnia with the same result.
As long as you’ve got countries ready to fund and arm an insurgency, (and today there are way more nations willing to do so than during the Cold War), it will just be a matter of time until some country ups the ante and supplies the insurgents with nuclear weapons for a strike against an attacker nation.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
But Afganistan would be a nuclear waste?
One can discuss if putting Carthage to the sword was sensible, however, but I really don’t know how total annihilation works in a 9/11 context. (Only nuking Hamburg & Waziristan??)
[/quote]
No. Just destroy every assest the Taliban had. Destroy every building and public works they use and maintain. Pulverize any area where they amass. Scatter them, drive them into holes and caves. And, just when they’re about to begin their asymmetrical warfare from those caves, simply leave. Wait for the next attack against us, and do it again. We can do that forever with far fewer of our own casualties (which is better, politcally). If that supermajority of sensible Afghan muslims we always hear about ever wants electricity and running water again, they’ll have to grow a pair and slaughter our enemies for us. We’ll give them the peace to finish that job once they’ve risen up. Afterwards, they can rebuild their own nation. No infidels patrolling their streets and defiling their sacred sand.
They can burn down schools, slaughter each other for sectarian reasons, shoot women in the head, and hang apostates in their own country. I wouldn’t let one US soldier fire a weapon to discourage any of those acts. Just kill/hand over our targets.
@Gkhan,
they didn’t kill millions. According to some statistics, it’s far less then America’s war/occupation/whatever in Iraq.
Actually, they did quite an investment in schools and infrastrucutre. Many afghans openly praise the soviets today.
@Sloth
I don’t think this is an effective strategy.
And return in full force a moth later? Apart from being fiscal madness, some of the 9/11 fanatics came from Germany. You wanna “pulverize” the university they studied at? The Starbucks they used to hang out in?
And return in full force a moth later? Apart from being fiscal madness, some of the 9/11 fanatics came from Germany. You wanna “pulverize” the university they studied at? The Starbucks they used to hang out in?
[/quote]
Well, if Germany was harboring them, yes. “Oh geeze, they maintain an asymmetrial force. Well, we can’t do anything!”
A month? Well, if that’s how long it took them to pull off a succesfull attack, sure. But, I seriously doubt it.
well, speaking about afghanistan, Rome wouldn’t have pulverized it.
they would have conquered the neighbouring countries under indirect rule, starting with India. and then, they would have let them deal with the tribes.
but they would have done it decades or centuries before these tribes became a direct threat for Rome.
[quote]kamui wrote:
My point is that US bombs repeatedly failed to spread liberty and democracy.[/quote]
Which is why it isn’t worth it. Our policy should be one of having a VERY high threshold when it comes to using military force. However, once we have crossed that threshold, we should annihilate our enemy (unless he surrenders in the short time he has managed to stay alive). We should use as little force as needed, but also as much as needed. Then we come home and let the survivors build their own bridges and schools. Rinse and repeat as needed. Not a dime to reconstruction.[/quote]
How high is this threshold?
If Pyongyang threatens to nuke Hawaii, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Seoul, do we retaliate?
If Pyongyang nukes Japan, do we retaliate?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote: @Gkhan,
they didn’t kill millions. According to some statistics, it’s far less then America’s war/occupation/whatever in Iraq.
Actually, they did quite an investment in schools and infrastrucutre. Many afghans openly praise the soviets today.
That almost looks like nation building does not work, no matter how far one is willing to go.
Shockingly, that would suggest that some things cannot be achived by violent means.
[/quote]
Nation building itself can work wonders. You simply have to nation build with your own people. So simply bomb the shit out of the country, lock down the borders, and move your own people in.
If we moved 30 million Americans over to Iraq after wiping out the people living their I’m willing to bet within 15-30 years it would be a strong, stable, ally nation.