The USA invading a hostile country instead of liberating it.

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Just a thought.

The US military is not a natural occupation force in a hostile situation.
Its only real true power is as a liberation force, and for gunboat diplomacy (i.e.using F-16's).

Once its basic job is done, it needs to leave or be wound down and the incumbent population left to its natural progression, with UN help, which hopefully will be along the US route.

The Romans and Brits in the past, like the Germans afterwards, or the Chinese, would invade a place and brutally squash all pockets of opposition.
Kill em all, and manipulate what was left to your own ends.
Pure colonialism, brutal and focussed.

Its not so simple for you, you don't want to do that.
You want the liberated population to "come over to your side"
but the world does not always work like that.
It failed in Vietnam, and looks increasingly like it will in Iraq.

And theres no pattern, the Vietnamese said no, while the Japanese and S.Koreans said yes.
Afghanistan and Kuwait had no problems.

If you at least stick with the UN route, you are far less likely to get it wrong.
(Just listen to the French
icon_razz.gif
)
 

RPM

OG
Joined
Mar 20, 2001
Messages
23,146
Tokens
eek,

you make some valid points, but i think the majority of the iraqy population wants to "come over to our side".

i think things would be much worse if they didnt. vietnam is a perfect example.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,214
Messages
13,565,478
Members
100,764
Latest member
sanatvaayurvedic
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com