Abraham Lincoln once stated that...?

Question

Abraham Lincoln once stated that "only brutal aggression could subdue the rebellion."

Do you think the same applies to the Iraq war?

Answer 1

Yes. Honest Abe was a very wise man.

Answer 2

Absolutly, the problem is that half th people in the Western world have become a bunch of pansies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1715287/posts
As Osama bin Laden puts it: "In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers--the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two. DEALING WITH THE PAMPERED AND EFFEMINATE AMERICANS WILL BE EASY." And then followed what has become the familiar description of the Americans and the usual litany and recitation of American defeats and retreats: Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia, one after another. The general theme was: They can't take it. Hit them and they'll run. All you have to do is hit harder. This seemed to receive final confirmation during the 1990s when one attack after another on embassies, warships, and barracks brought no response beyond angry words and expensive missiles misdirected to remote and uninhabited places, and in some places--as in Beirut and Somalia--prompt retreats.

Answer 3

No.

Different time, different place, different war.

Brutal aggression by itself no longer wins wars of any kind, because the very nature of war has changed greatly since the 19th century.

What wins wars most now is voluminous intelligence gathering about the enemy, possibly even by having spies infiltrate the enemy's control centers, ala t.v.'s 24.

Our enemies in Iraq keep us at bay not because they are more numerous or stronger and better trained than us, but because they are smarter than us and predict our every move before we even make it.

To win in Iraq, we must reverse this trend.

Answer 4

It would work if we were willing to pay the price in both lives and money that would be necessary to bring most of these insurgent groups to thier knees. The American public is not willing to make that kind of sacrifice or employ the brutal tactics necessary to subdue this rebellion.

Answer 5

When did the Sunnis and Shi'a split? 700-something AD? Yeah, so Islam's had a civil war for a good 1300+ years straight. I don't think the US throwing money or troops is going to end entrenched religious warfare. It's not a matter of killing terrorists, it's stopping the ideology and the dissemination of that ideology. people can die, but ideas live on forever.

Answer 6

If our policy is to subdue the Iraq people then yes, its all they know

Answer 7

First, that grow to be no longer the entire fact, and how you portrayed it right here replaced the which skill of his fact. He grow to be no longer commenting on whether a "government of the human beings, by skill of the human beings, and for the human beings" could desire to or shouldn't exist. He grow to be merely noting that dissimilar squaddies on the two aspects of the yank Civil conflict had died attempting to verify that query for the USA, no longer inevitably the international and not inevitably invariably (merely for the time of that element physique). He grow to be no longer commenting for or against that government. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln grow to be a human. a great human, surely, yet human whether. His be conscious grow to be no longer infallible, so the undeniable fact that he mentioned a fact isn't absolute information that it extremely is going to be that way. consistent with danger it extremely is going to be, consistent with danger it extremely is going to no longer be; however the undeniable fact that it grow to be Abraham Lincoln who mentioned it, fairly than, say, some random loser in Ohio or New Jersey or Argentina or Timbuktu or everywhere else, isn't information that it extremely is going to be as he mentioned. Thirdly, the Bible itself says that "the entire international is mendacity interior the flexibility of the depraved one," (1st John 5:19) and likewise that it would not belong to guy who's strolling even to direct his very own step (Jeremiah 10:23). Therfore, the Bible could truly argue that a "government of the human beings, by skill of the human beings, and for the human beings" shoud no longer truly exist. So in accordance to the Bible, human beings are too silly to lead themselves; and democracy, which places administration of the government interior the palms of many human beings, truly is the stupidest thank you to deal with human management. With a dictatorship of God, God does understand what's terrific for each man or woman and needs to assist actually everyone, so He does what's acceptable. yet regardless of a human dictatorship, a minimum of there is purely one fool in value. i think of the present day strikes of the yank government, with the President and a Congress picked by skill of the human beings, shows merely how democracy places power interior the palms of dissimilar idiots, rather of purely one.

Answer 8

no. you will kill more innocent people.

see what US had done in a war, take example this photo shots from one of Afghanistan war-torn families.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/us/hidden_agenda_behind_the_war_on_afgan.htm

what he meant could be kdnap or assasination of the tyrant leader, not war to the countries.

Answer 9

It applies to most wars and uprisings.

Answer 10

So NOW youre calling the illegal invasion of Iraq "a rebellion?"

I LOVE how the Neo Con Artists keep switching reasons why we're in Iraq, now its to "quell rebellion" something they wouldnt have if we hadn't gone in there to "find WMD" or "remove a dictator" or the OTHER reasons du jour, in the FIRST PLACE..

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then Dick Cheney will shoot who's hunting for it