[OT] I've arrived in Afghanistan

[Machinesworking]

Let me add to the little problem of Irish occupation you seem to forget about, Scotland was defeated with less of a decisive crushing victory, in fact the kings etc. were still given a semblance of power, and it went far better for England. In Ireland they crushed and attained a decisive victory, total subjugation, but at the cost of bitter resentment from the irish people.
So in this particular case, your scenario of total domination proves to be a losing proposition.

Again, why I'm inclined to believe we never had a withdrawal from Iraq, and we quite possibly don't have one for Afghanistan. My belief is we just want a strong military presence in the middle east, aimed at securing the oil supply. It's easy and misleading to believe that GWB and crew didn't think about this stuff, it's all they do.

[M. Bréqs]

When one side attains a decisive, crushing victory, peace is almost inevitable.

Ok let's forget about Ireland........ oh wait! that's right? Ireland does seem to be shining example of how your theory is dead wrong eh? People who have an even slightly different culture and strong national identity tend to resent outside influence on their politics, to the point of it not being settled for hundreds of years.
You forget, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in the battle, no doubt whatsoever. That simple fact made their defeat and subsequent democratic renewal possible.
Now, lets' look at iraq, exactly how many Iraqis were there on the planes that flew into the world trade center? How many Saudis?

See, this right here, this total lack of logical direction in this "war", is what would make me wary mbreqs. What indication do we have, if any at all that we are "fighting terrorism"? Personally I'm becoming more and more convinced it was NEVER our intention to stabilize Iraq, we're just waiting for the excuse to war with Iran, then it's a permanent occupation, or at least until the oil runs out.

Interesting; you're saying that Germany and Japan's initial aggression was a critically necessary factor in facilitating their eventual surrender?

However, I think that in Germany's case, there is a "national guilt" over what happened; but that doesn't exist to nearly the same extent in Japan (where Koizumi was widely viewed as a hero for visiting a war shrine).

Now I'm not commenting on whether he was right or wrong to visit the shrine (it did honour countless Japanese soldiers who were NOT war criminals as well as the dozens who were), but here's a perfect contrast between the German reaction and the Japanese:

The Germans to this day hold guilt over what happened; the Japanese do not (to the same extent). So, the question is this; What exactly was it about their aggression that lead to the eventual peace? I don't think that it aggression is actually a factor in the subsequent pacifism or docility of the society, as the dichotomy of Germany and Japan shows.

I would say that peace in Ireland is far to young to be able to say that they have conceded to a peaceful resolution. I think we agree on that; and the Irish were never defeated as soundly as I suggest we should strive to defeat our enemies today. The Irish were occupied, but never dominated. Likewise, the Balkans were cool for <60 years, but the underlying hatred of the other just stewed away, waiting for its next chance... Peace is only temporary when one of the factions continues to harbour hope of eventual victory.

Thus, I think Clausewitz's theory of Total War (and transitively my hypothesis regarding complete capitulation) still presents a very valid (though admittedly not perfect) model of human conflict.

[Machinesworking]

Interesting; you're saying that Germany and Japan's initial aggression was a critically necessary factor in facilitating their eventual surrender?

No, that because they were the aggressors in the war, their defeat carried the weight of total subjugation with the feeling of having deserved their fate. Their initial aggression was a necessary factor in their democratic rebirths.

However, I think that in Germany's case, there is a "national guilt" over what happened; but that doesn't exist to nearly the same extent in Japan.......
.........So, the question is this; What exactly was it about their aggression that lead to the eventual peace? I don't think that it aggression is actually a factor in the subsequent pacifism or docility of the society, as the dichotomy of Germany and Japan shows.

Though Japan had definitely a brutality in China, and ethnic cleansing did happen to a degree, it simply was not at the level of the systematic abuse of the jewish people. Not to mention homosexuals, gypsies, political dissidents, the elderly, mentally, and physically handicapped.
The german guilt after WWII definitely wouldn't have been half as intense if it hadn't been for the nazis doing this. Plus, though it's been argued that the atomic bomb was the reason for japanese surrender etc. it still stands as the most horrific act of annihilation in any war. Not maybe for actual numbers, but for sheer impact. That I think could explain why japan doesn't share Germany's level of guilty conscience.
None of that really has anything to do with the point about aggression leading to a subsequent burden of guilt in surrender. Ireland simply wasn't the aggressor when England conquered, and subsequently the sheer level of crushing victory meant nothing, people remembered for hundreds of years, and eventually threw them out of 3/4 of the country.
History shows again and again that a country that is conquered and handed a puppet ruler will eventually revert to some sort of religious dogmatic ethnic tribalism..... Afghanistan maybe? I'm just not convinced yet that we have any real interest in stabilizing the area. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if Iraq is any example.....

I would say that peace in Ireland is far to young to be able to say that they have conceded to a peaceful resolution. I think we agree on that; and the Irish were never defeated as soundly as I suggest we should strive to defeat our enemies today. The Irish were occupied, but never dominated.

I would say handing all property over to scottish immigrants, and making it virtually illegal to own a business if you were irish is pretty much total dominance wouldn't you? I mean seriously? what more do you want?
The fact is if people don't feel they are treated fairly by the occupier, they rebel. I just don't think modern warfare can be fought without acknowledging that historically people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds never have successfully occupied a nation in the long run, at some point the natives must be either exterminated, (USA) or they regain control. (south america)
Now of course it can be argued that plenty of the ruling class in south america are of spanish decent, but the system of Spanish rule is gone.

One thing that keeps getting ignored here in these discussions is the little issue of the possibility that Iraq for instance might just be better served if it was divided into at least two countries. I simply don't see how any sunni could expect anything but the absolute worst treatment from the shiite faction in Iraq, yet we simply don't really acknowledge this.......

[M. Bréqs]

One thing that keeps getting ignored here in these discussions is the little issue of the possibility that Iraq for instance might just be better served if it was divided into at least two countries. I simply don't see how any sunni could expect anything but the absolute worst treatment from the shiite faction in Iraq, yet we simply don't really acknowledge this.......

On that we agree 100%. Partition is the best possible solution for Iraq. In my opinion, it's the best possible solution for Bosnia, too (but the International Community doesn't seem to think so).

These people don't want to coexist in the same place, so why force them? With Partition, you don't have to patrol the entire country, only the boundaries between the factions (like Cyprus or the Golan Heights).

[Machinesworking]

One thing that keeps getting ignored here in these discussions is the little issue of the possibility that Iraq for instance might just be better served if it was divided into at least two countries. I simply don't see how any sunni could expect anything but the absolute worst treatment from the shiite faction in Iraq, yet we simply don't really acknowledge this.......

On that we agree 100%. Partition is the best possible solution for Iraq. In my opinion, it's the best possible solution for Bosnia, too (but the International Community doesn't seem to think so).

These people don't want to coexist in the same place, so why force them? With Partition, you don't have to patrol the entire country, only the boundaries between the factions (like Cyprus or the Golan Heights).

Right, but there's this little fact of 70% shiite population in a shiite dominated Iraq, minus the sunnis, means inevitably very friendly relations with their neighbors of the shiite faith, Iran.
This is a MAJOR thorn in the side of the US, the simple fact that Iran and Iraq, in any semblance of democratic process, would naturally become allies. We have so thoroughly blown our chances of hospitible relations with Iran (admittedly it would have been difficult at best in the first place!), that there is to me, not a snowballs chance in hell that we,
A: Actually have any real plan to get out of Iraq.
and
B: Would even consider separating the sunnis from the shiites.

Like I've said before, I'm more convinced than ever that our plans do not include any real timeline for bringing troops home. In fact I would assume that if there was even a mild terrorist attack on US soil, we would be in Iran in a second. Nevermind that Afghanistan and Pakistan is where Al Queda are.......

[M. Bréqs]

Well, just left Canada and all I can say is that it's darn hot.

8)

[Tone Deft]

see any Starbucks yet?

[cosmosuave]

see any Starbucks yet?

No Starbucks but they do have....

[pulsoc]

While I disagree with you concerning the purpose of the military occupation in Iraq and Afgan, I do give you much respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is.'

Get home safe.

[Tone Deft]

While I disagree with you concerning the purpose of the military occupation in Iraq and Afgan, I do give you much respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is.'

Get home safe.

word. that's some heavy shit.

[sweetjesus]

While I disagree with you concerning the purpose of the military occupation in Iraq and Afgan, I do give you much respect for 'putting your money where your mouth is.'

Get home safe.

word.

+1

edit: i dont think its cool of u to brag about how good the money is.

[Tone Deft]

see any Starbucks yet?

No Starbucks but they do have....

awwwwww shit! all hyped on Tim Horton coffee and not a hockey rink in site to get out all that energy. we're hosed, eh?

[kramerica]

Best of luck to you!

Making good money while helping the world become a better place - sounds like a good deal to me.

[cosmosuave]

Best of luck to you!

Making good money while helping the world become a better place - sounds like a good deal to me.

Thread is ready to spiral out of control again in 3...2...1...

[robtronik]

Best of luck to you!

Making good money while helping the world become a better place - sounds like a good deal to me.

Al Gore agrees!

rob.