I'm too young for any similar events in my own life and currently can't think of one from history where (victorious) forces have to police their defeated enemy to prevent collapse and fallout consequences. Please, without (too many partisan) oppinions, have there been similar situations? What was the outcome? Thanks.
2007-02-19 13:40:57 · 7 answers · asked by Jonny Propaganda 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No. When the US occupied Germany at the end of WWII, the Germans simply surrendered and went back home b/c they were quite tired of the war. Same thing happened in Japan. Iraq looks like a nation that should not be invaded in the first place, and that's why they do not want to put down their weapons? I am not sure. Hope it helps.
2007-02-19 13:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by Gone 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Philipine profession and reorganization grow to be plenty greater tricky and bloody. One parallel of word is that the army had retired its 40 5 pistols and long gone to a 38 (certainly a .357 high quality bullet) and had to bypass lower back to the 40 5 Colt. the army went to a 9mm (.355 bullet) some years lower back, and now rather plenty all of us needs to bypass lower back to the 40 5 ACP. There are parallels with Vietnam, yet many times no longer those that persons advise while they factor it out. The greater I study on those posts the greater particular i'm that few human beings over age 50 and rather much no one youthful has a clue on the subject of the historic previous of the conflict in Vietnam, and how close even the meddlesome and irrational President Johnson got here to winning that conflict. Small-scale parallels is additionally got here across on the island of Hispanola interior the 1920's and 30's, and Nicaragua. it relatively is relatively useful to study some USMC historic previous, enormously biographical sketches of Smedley Butler and Chesty Puller.
2016-10-16 01:33:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whenever one nation is victorious over another, the victor has to rule at least temporarily in place of the defeated country. Usually they simply take over the government of the defeated nation. Usually they employ overwhelming force and massive numbers of troops to gain and maintain control.
The unusual aspect of this situation is that the US and its allies do not actually want to rule Iraq. They wanted to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and set up an independent democratic government. They have tried to turn the conflict over to Iraqis as much as possible.
2007-02-19 14:15:45 · answer #3 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well i am not really sure but you know how there is a smaller war before a world war? Like the cold war and ww1?Well i like that this is kinda like that i think this is a small war that might have a bigger outcome (ww3!!) Well the outcome will be america win's everyone is happy again. Or maybe not i am not sure.
2007-02-19 13:53:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Korean war
consequent; the country was split, but the ties between china n NK has been booted-up till now. the same with relationship between USA and SK
Vietnam war
consequent; the US loosed, the communist took over,
the relationship between soviet and china was in jeopardise, but the ties between china n vietnam had also been booted-up.
soviet in the afghan's war
consequent, soviet loosed, and it was one of fact that destroyed soviet economic.
USA helped OSAMA BINLARDEN and his people both in term of training, money and weaponry fighting with the soviet, later... you know.
2007-02-19 15:33:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people are comparing it with Vietnam.
2007-02-19 13:55:34 · answer #6 · answered by auteur 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but you have to go back to Mesopotamian times.
2007-02-20 14:47:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋