|
United States44236 Posts
On January 16 2010 01:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 00:48 Boblion wrote:On January 15 2010 23:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote:
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way. Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way. I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans. However i have to admit that the U-K always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move. Hmm... What about American revolution war? Or all the conflicts in Africa, like the Zulu wars in 1879, etc etc... which were extremely costly in men and money. Plus Britain didn't hesitate to send its soldiers and its army where their interest where in danger. Like in China, in 1840 and 1856 when the Chineses government decided to stop the trade of opium which was killing millions of Chinese. Despite having it forbidden in Great Britain, England sent its soldiers to fight for "free trade". Things have not changed very much.
We were young and inexperienced once too. The Boer war was a total mess for example, our Vietnam. We ended up giving South Africa to the Boers to end it (their part of what became South Africa merged with our part and joined the empire but they were given loads of rights and political power and ended up governing it). I just think it's odd that America's closest ally pretty much wrote the book on being an imperial power and yet America refuses to emulate it in many ways.
|
Didn't the British emulate what the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch have been doing for decades? And America is still pretty young and inexperienced. It's only been like 400 years or so since the country has been in existence and it's been maybe a century or so since America started wielding any kind of power in its international relations.
|
United States44236 Posts
On January 16 2010 01:20 ghostWriter wrote:
Didn't the British emulate what the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch have been doing for decades? And America is still pretty young and inexperienced. It's only been like 400 years or so since the country has been in existence and it's been maybe a century or so since America started wielding any kind of power in its international relations.
Dutch, yes. And by emulate the Dutch I mean get invaded by the Dutch and become them but then hush up the entire affair and pretend it never happened. Spanish, very much no. Spain just stole shit. The Pope divided the world in half and gave the entire west to Spain and the entire east to Portugal to stop them fighting each other (if he was aware it was round he didn't care). Spain found themselves with lots of uncivilised people with gold and silver to fight so just stole shit because it was easy. Portugal, Britain and Holland headed east and were technologically inferior to the people there (sub-Saharan Africa being off limits until steamships and the malaria vaccine). Therefore they were forced to become mercantile powers, as well as occasional piracy (particularly to the Spanish).
|
France8165 Posts
Hmmm...
America is much more subtle than England has been in terms of economic domination. America is using its cultural and economic supremacy as a huge propaganda machine for its ideology. England owned half of the globe, America owe itself. England considered people all around the world as semi humans who had to be civilized, America as potential consumers and slave of its economic domination.
Soemthing new though: American big companies ineterst are completely foreign to America's interest. That's where Zizek says that even America is a colonized country, a banana republic, and that the new colonizer are faceless multinational corporations and not imperial powers
|
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
|
On January 16 2010 01:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Hmmm...
America is much more subtle than England has been in terms of economic domination. America is using its cultural and economic supremacy as a huge propaganda machine for its ideology. England owned half of the globe, America owe itself. England considered people all around the world as semi humans who had to be civilized, America as potential consumers and slave of its economic domination.
Soemthing new though: American big companies ineterst are completely foreign to America's interest. That's where Zizek says that even America is a colonized country, a banana republic, and that the new colonizer are faceless multinational corporations and not imperial powers
Yeah the first part is what I meant before. I didn't mean to say that the British didn't have economic interests in mind when the British Empire was coming together.
And yeah, that's what I see too. These huge corporations are cannibalizing taxpayer dollars, which is why government spending is going through the roof and why the debt is increasing so quickly. All you have to do is take a look at places like New Orleans to see that the corporations that were entrusted with the obligations for building good levees and preparing for a disaster like Hurricane Katrina did an awful job, despite the huge amount of funding they got. They totally botched the reconstruction and it's not even close to done although it's been about 5 years.
Even in America, the stratification between rich and poor is increasing with government programs under attack and the rich slowly moving into their own states within a state. Soldiers patrolled the street in Alabama, even though it's explicitly in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (http://www.infowars.com/us-army-puts-soldiers-on-the-street-in-alabama-in-response-to-shootings/) and we're seeing the beginnings of a police state. Various aspects of the Patriot Act were a clear violation of privacy and now the police are starting to keep people from filming their acts http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/13/boston-police-arresting-people-for-filming-them-on-streets-as-invasive-of-their-privacy/).
|
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
It's such a shame that genocide has become unseemly as a tactical solution, right? Things were so much more efficient in the days of Genghis Khan, when it was commonplace to simply slaughter or enslave the entirety of the defeated population.
|
France8165 Posts
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
|
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
|
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
/tinfoilhat
|
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Justification is really a moot point; most people here would be furious if the US were ever invaded, even if all the rest of the world felt it was just.
|
France8165 Posts
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
|
On January 15 2010 23:21 ItsYoungLee wrote:
We still have a huge threat, we need to protect Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban or we may be f*cked
LOLOLOL.
All of our current efforts are working counter productively against this goal.
|
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
|
France8165 Posts
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence. I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
|
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence. I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings. 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders. 2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder. I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
|
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence. I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings. 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders. 2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder. I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
|
On January 16 2010 00:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 00:48 Boblion wrote:On January 15 2010 23:07 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote:
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way. Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way. I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans. However i have to admit that the U-K has always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the war is being directed by America and in both cases the British armed forces have spent the entire time insisting they could do a better job. So I really don't think you can hold that against their record. In fact, I think their point is that you very much can't. Although nobody has any business invading Iraq anyway and a sensible imperial power would know that. Saddam must have had a second in command who knew that if it came to invasion he'd be hung with his president and if he promoted himself no invasion would be necessary. That's how an intelligent country deals with these things.
You are comparing different countries, different eras, and different OBJECTIVES.
The main problem with Vietnam for France is that it happened just after WWII, basicly nobody has any idea about what to do here because the IV Republic was instable and inefficient and there was no real plan ( give them independance or send more troops ? even politicians didn't know ). Btw the communist party was highly influential ( 25+% of the population ) in France during this period and organized strikes to protest against the war.
Also the public opinion didn't care at all about Indochina and was way more worried about the reconstruction of the metropole. So basicly they send in Indochina the leftovers of the colonial army, ffl ( with tons of Germans or Alsacians dudes who had been in the Wehrmacht or the SS during WWII lol ) with no real objectives except "fight the commies". At that time there were no TV in France, conscripts weren't really used so people in Metropolitan France not only didn't care but also had no idea about was happening. Then after Dien Bien Phu the government realized that the war was expensive and that it could not be won ( or at least not lost quickly ) without a massive surge but sending conscripts would have been highly unpopular and Ev- hence the Geneva conference.
The Algerian war was even messier because it was the only French colony with an important colon population that didn't want to leave. Once again the IV Republic failed to solve the problem and did so bad they utimately decided to give the power to De Gaulle. After realizing that the war was highly unpopular and that using conscripts was terrible for the morale France had to withdraw too.
The war got messy and bloody and lasted for a while because of the incompetence of the IV Republic and the right wing and colons who formed terrorists groups to fight against the French army. Even De Gaulle didn't know what to do at first ( the famous " français, je vous ai compris " ) because he had to face the two opposites of the political spectrum.
Then the decolonization of the rest of Africa was peaceful because there were no more leadership problem ( V Republic ), because there were no large numbers of colons outside of Algeria and because France wasn't the same mess than just after WWII.
Actually it is probably the best example of tricky, malicious and cheap decolonization and what is called neocolonization. Give the power to corrupted local people then trade with them. Once in a while give money to support/prevent a coup.
So basicly you ranting about the "Brits knowing how to do" is irrevelant because U-K was in a completly different situation in Malaysia ( which could not get as much support from China and USSR than Vietnam or North Korea ) and i don't know how a successful war fifty years ago could be related to the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan ( once again different countries involved, different areas, different objectives etc ... ).
It is cool they had a plan in the 50's - 60's but i don't know if the massive deportation of civilians that they used in Malaysia would be popular nowadays.
|
France8165 Posts
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence. I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings. 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders. 2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder. I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
Do you really believe that?
Wow.
|
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote:
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble. You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it. And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them. Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell. Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation. What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence. I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings. 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders. 2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder. I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through. That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
