Forums | MacLife

From a purely terrorism point of view, it might even be advantageous to have the Chinese invade and occupy the region. They don't have the same moral issues we do, and would be perfectly willing to take the necessary steps to handle the situation. The Chinese could put enough troops in every village to ensure the Taliban don't control anything larger than an outhouse in the sticks.

However, it would also cause a tremendous amount of tension in the region, and make Russia nervous. I also don't believe that Afghanistan, unlike Tibet, has ever been claimed as part of the Chinese empire, so I'm not counting on it happening.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

If firepower plus ruthlessness could win a guerrilla war, they'd be flying the stars 'n' stripes in Hanoi.

We didn't display the kind of ruthlessness the Chinese can muster with ease. Not even close. Even the Japanese out did us in the absolute brutality department in WWII.

We put too many constraints on the troops, in part to prevent these sorts of things.

So, Soviet Russia couldn't win there, and America can't win there...

THE TALIBAN ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!

Send Rambo to rescue anyone you really care about and get the hell out.

sturner wrote:

The only reason the TAliban can make a go of it there, is they are indiginous. And they managed to provide some security and stability, and a lesser level of corruption.

I don't think they would be too happy to invite Al Queda back in. But you never know.

Personally I think Afghanistan is basically the main playing field for the Pakistani civil war.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

If firepower plus ruthlessness could win a guerrilla war, they'd be flying the stars 'n' stripes in Hanoi.

We didn't display the kind of ruthlessness the Chinese can muster with ease. Not even close. Even the Japanese out did us in the absolute brutality department in WWII.

We put too many constraints on the troops, in part to prevent these sorts of things.

Once again your pathetic grasp of history leaves me at once sickened and angered.

The US *MIGHT* have come close on a few occasions to the kind of crap the Chinese and Japanese have pulled, but we didn't routinely, or as a matter of policy, kidnap and enslave large numbers of Koreans or wipe out entire villages. That's not to say the US went in there like a bunch of Boy Scouts, but to compare the Korean war to wars fought by other regional powers is asinine.

Shoot, we didn't even get as nasty as the North Koreans, though this is somewhat understandable given the situation.

As controversial as it is at the moment I think the Italians were on to something in their little corner of the war.

robco wrote:

Are we forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or Dresden.
WWII was a brutal ugly war and all sides committed horrible atrocities. Honestly, from what I have read what the Japs did in China makes the A-bomb seem positively civilized.

Last edited by Pariah (2009-10-16 4:57 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

robco wrote:

Are we forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or Dresden.

Or My Lai.

Not to diminish an ugly incident but My Lia was not "according to policy" is you get my meaning.
Caley was freelancing as it were.

Pariah wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Or Dresden.

Or My Lai.

Not to diminish an ugly incident but My Lia was not "according to policy" is you get my meaning.
Caley was freelancing as it were.

Well, a captain basically told them that anyone in the village was a VC who should be killed, but in reality the only thing that makes My Lai different is the fact that it was concentrated. Normally the killing was wholesale rather than retail.

Four million civilians died in the war. Four million. In comparison that's well over a million more than the total number of Japanese casualties in the Second World War, civilian and military, including firebombings and atomic bombings.

Four million. And that's just the civilians. At least a million Vietnamese soldiers were killed too.

robco wrote:

Are we forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

While horrific, those were hardly brutal, savage attacks. Most died almost instantly in the initial blasts, the rest in the next week from radiation poisoning. Not a pleasant way to go, but a lot better than dying of starvation in a prison camp. Along the way, though; we nuked a couple of fairly major military targets, and brought about the surrender of Japan early - which probably prevented millions more from dying.

While tragic, those cities devastation worked to prevent an even worse devastation.

Dresden, I could buy. Firebombing a city is a pretty brutal, violent act. From what I've read, it was a bit like waking up in hell. However, this was one city, over two days. The Germans bombed many cities, over years. We could talk about the bombing of Coventry, or any number of other cities.

Thus, I'm still not convinced that the US is any worse, or even close, to the regimes original mentioned. If someone would like to point to some well-documented sources that claim otherwise, I'm all ears.

Killing massive amounts of civilians is still killing them. It was a war and there were no gentlemen. Each side did things that were unspeakable. I think the Gerrys won the prize for most brutal however. In any case, it's not behavior that should be condoned in any way. It's not OK when the IDF does it to Palestinians. It wasn't OK when US troops did it to Native Americans. It's not OK in Darfur.

That being said, the US (nor NATO) is not the world's police force. If our initial mission in Afghanistan has been completed, then it's time to withdraw. Nation building is not our job - we're horrible at it. What happens in Afghanistan or Iraq, though may be unpleasant, isn't our concern. We've done what we can to give them a better government, it's up to them to keep it.  But democracy cannot be imposed. If the people simply aren't ready, if it's incompatible with their culture, then let another government take control. If we wait for them to be ready, we'll be there an awfully long time and we can't afford that.

I do with the administration had the guts to wind down the military campaign at the same time ratcheting up our intelligence campaign. Organizations like AQ cannot be taken down through military might. I think our best long-term strategy is for the US to mind our own business. We have enough domestic concerns and we don't need to put our $0.02 in on every world problem. The era of American dominance is over. It's time for us to exit the stage.

radarman wrote:

sturner wrote:

Well, there were the Indian Wars.

Yeah, I forgot about those. Sending small-pox infected blankets in winter was a pretty sick thing to do. The forced marches and reservations were pretty sucky as well.

So, I'll grant that the US military was pretty brutal and thuggish with the native populations. However, the native populations weren't exactly all rose petals and satin with the early settlers either. How many settlers had their scalps hanging from some Indian's home? (or whose remains can still be found out on the plains with an axe in their back.) It is arguable that the war with the native populations might not have been won in our favor had we not been brutal and thuggish. The point is made, however.

Are you delusional? The first nations peoples didnt have a hope in hell of winning any conflict with European settlers.  I suspect that for every scalping or "axe in the back" we can find many more deaths due to smallpox and forced migration.