Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is insurgency realy the problem ? Or is 21st AD Morality the problem?
blitZ    1/11/2007 2:41:24 PM
If it were the 1940s or before, there would be no problem occupying and subduing Iraq and its insurgency. The real problem is not Shia or Sunni or Iran or Syria or Ethnic divides or Religious Extremism. The problem is the Moral codes of the 21st century and the all pervasive media. I will say no more. I hope someone gets it.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Bob       1/11/2007 4:11:03 PM
Wonder what Eithiopia was doing two weeks ago... They were probably extremely heavy handed. Meanwhile, I heard the U.S hit a "wedding party" in Somalia...


 
Quote    Reply

xylene       1/14/2007 4:23:47 PM
I just can't see how we will ever be able to win a decisive ground war again unless we shake this notion of "clean war fighting". Even tactics that won the Gulf War in 1991 would be severely questioned today. We have never had an enemy that abided by the "rules of war" and yet we tie our hands behind our back, blindfold ourselves, and wonder why things on the ground are not going well.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG       1/15/2007 2:09:51 AM
If it were the 1940s or before, there would be no problem occupying and subduing Iraq and its insurgency.

For example? Who are you talking about? The U.S.?  Any old country?  Under what circumstances?
 
This assertion is too vague to really argue.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       1/15/2007 3:58:03 AM

I just can't see how we will ever be able to win a decisive ground war again unless we shake this notion of "clean war fighting". Even tactics that won the Gulf War in 1991 would be severely questioned today. We have never had an enemy that abided by the "rules of war" and yet we tie our hands behind our back, blindfold ourselves, and wonder why things on the ground are not going well.


Am i too presume, that you finally understand one of the more powerful tactics employed against us, has mostly been waged within the media sphere to the benefit of our many enemies for the past several decades! How many here really believe that any American President would be so stupid as to attack, and intentionally hurt or rip up "The Constitution" of his own country and not expect his head too already be on silver plate by now! Not even George W. Bush supporter's would go along with him, or protect him if he were too perform such an outrage! I simply do not think any of the most powerful in American politic's today or our past, has ever had the guts to do something like that! So... who does that leave out being the beneficiary of us alway's being at each others throat's? Just think about it, it's not the first time enemy countries had sought too divide us in a time of war by appealing and misleading our consciences. But, it is the first time that they refused too openly admit it, where if they did... the consequences would be more too their disadvantage by incurring our wrath. So you can see... why they are taking the more subtle, yet effective, cowardly approach!
 
"For example? Who are you talking about? The U.S.?  Any old country?  Under what circumstances?
 
This assertion is too vague to really argue." - PaulG
 
I think he was pretty clear. Referring to Iraq, and in the here and now; I believe... he was speaking about the democracies and the coalition in general and too no one allied nation in particular. Where currently many are under the misconception, that freedom of the press in a time of war, translates into freedom too opine ones misleading political view's, regardless that there is a war on... or be mislead by a bunch of unscrupulous stringers w/o bothering too fact check any info that is passed on, also regardless... of the fact's on the ground! I think it's pretty clear, we have made Iraq alot more harder than it had too be! There are fact's, and then there are opinion's. The two are very different when you allow yourself too get past a personal bias!
 
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       1/15/2007 4:15:26 AM

Wonder what Eithiopia was doing two weeks ago... They were probably extremely heavy handed. Meanwhile, I heard the U.S hit a "wedding party" in Somalia...



Seems a lot of Islamic terrorists seem to stop and have "weddings" while they are on the run. Wonderfully traditionally-minded people, they are!
 
 
swhitebull

 
Quote    Reply

xylene       1/15/2007 1:40:26 PM
Maybe they should stop having their wedding ceremonies in the homes of terrorists. They should have their weddings in a church or at the justice of the peace, not at Osama Bin Laden's house.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    1940 or otherwise Iraq would be in chaos   1/15/2007 1:51:05 PM
The British ruled Iraq for a while in 1947 India became independent and pulled its troops from Iraq in 1948 and the Brits had no stomach for a fight--I guess after WW2 etc etc. The point is as a rule the West has always given up a battle against
determined Asian Arab hordes unless it has had mercernaries of sorts or local support. Or it simply used a nuke. Man to man the West has a poor record in an honest fight.
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       1/15/2007 2:48:51 PM
But when has war ever been an honest fight by dueling contestants. Maybe some examples of chivalry can be found in the middle ages or during the Napoleanic age, but since especially after World War 1 , war has become a brutal slugfest. The reasons for this decline in standards could be debated, but we are applying standards that were in effect by nations that were primarily competing for colonies, trade lanes, and influence. Today and in the 20th century war seems to have been more for national survival to stave of total conquest and/or genocide. Add in nationalism, racism, and religion it all adds fanaticism to the mix. Trying to fight a gentleman's war against an enemy that will use any means necissary only opens a strategic advantage to the enemy. They will exploit this advantage every chance possible. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc       1/15/2007 3:22:18 PM
Even Germany was repelled by Russians--Slavs --As a rule Slavs Asians and Arabs have always prevailled on their home ground unless they were sold out by groups within or had been nuked or teched out. Of Native populations only the Indians(Americans) and native South Americans plus Aboriginals have never held ground and thats why USA & Australia etc etc. Though a later symbiosis between the "natives" was also achieved. The British ruled over countries like India(rather regions) as it relied on local kings allying with the empire against neighbouring kingdoms and finally weaved a country called India. Japan could very well have prevailed if it were not for nukes. At least it would not have been an all out surrender.
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       1/16/2007 8:21:17 AM

Even Germany was repelled by Russians--Slavs --As a rule Slavs Asians and Arabs have always prevailled on their home ground unless they were sold out by groups within or had been nuked or teched out. Of Native populations only the Indians(Americans) and native South Americans plus Aboriginals have never held ground and thats why USA & Australia etc etc. Though a later symbiosis between the "natives" was also achieved. The British ruled over countries like India(rather regions) as it relied on local kings allying with the empire against neighbouring kingdoms and finally weaved a country called India. Japan could very well have prevailed if it were not for nukes. At least it would not have been an all out surrender.



Herc, sometimes i question where you learned your history, if not your sanity. This happens too be one of those times when i find myself questioning both!
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics