2007-09-12 07:51:58 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, let's look at history to see if we can find some clues.
Here's what we're looking for: a country is invaded and taken over by a foreign power. The local population doesn't like this and, in various ways, resists. How long will it take to eliminate that resistance and what is the ultimate outcome?
Ireland under Britain: 350 years. Outcome: Ireland regained independance
Vietnam under the French: 100 years +. Ouutcome--French lost
The Warsaw pact nations under the USSR: 44 years.Outcome: no more USSR.
India under Britain: 150 years Outcome--British lost their colonies India, akistan, Bangladesh independant
There are at least a hundred other examples.
Conclusion: the local population will NOT stop fighting back--even if you suppress open violence--untill the invaders leave. Not in a year. Not in 10 years. Not in 100 years. And---ultimately--the invader loses.
2007-09-12 08:06:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
my general says:
"it would not be advisable and could be dangerous to predict the outcome or assume too many details about the future of the mission in Iraq"
however
"we must continue so as not to lose valuable progress, and the consequence of not accomplishing the mission would be devastating"
so we have to keep trying to accomplish the mission without knowing when or how this will be done simply because we can predict with certainty the outcome if we do not, however, we cannot predict the outcome with any certainty if we continue to attempt to complete the mission.
does this make sense?
2007-09-12 15:01:16 · answer #2 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just over two weeks ago, Iran announced that it is ready to take over the void ("vacuum") left in Iraqi leadership when the U.S. pulls out. Iran has mismanaged their oil supply to the point that while sitting atop the world's third largest reserve, they find it necessary to IMPORT rather than export.
As much as a lot of people hated Reagan, you have to admit that his advisors made it clear to him that the world's economy runs on oil. This explains why he reflagged all of those foreign oil tankers passing through the region and provided them with armed escort (read: U.S. Navy) for safe passage.
Iran is not at all friendly towards the west and hates the U.S. with a passion -- with just cause (Eisenhower/Nixon's CIA overthrow back in the 1950s to install the Shaw to the Peacock throan).
Until you can convince the U.N. to (without corruption) do the job they should have been doing all along (preDesert Storm thru to present), someone (ANYONE!) needs to protect the world's economy from a country that exports terrorism and is admittedly ready to "fill the vauum."
2007-09-12 15:02:24 · answer #3 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war was accomplished in a couple of days . A real war is he uniformed army of a nation at war with the uniformed national army of another nation .
Saddam's army folded so soom as a couple of shots were fired . We are not at war with Iraq now. Just the opposite. We are supporting the govrnment of Iraq .
We are using our soldiers as policemen . Our soldiers make poor policemen . Real policemen know their beat . They know the people . They speak the language . They belong to the community, so they're trusted by the population .
Foreign soldiers are never trusted . The citizens will protect their own criminals before reporting them to a foreign army .
The ork going on now should be done by Iraqi policemen. Soldiers are for fighting real wars - - - - not police work .
2007-09-12 15:21:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we stopped the political correctness, hit the Islamofascists hard, and used all of the might our military has (payed for by American tax dollars), this war could be mission accomplished in thirty days.
2007-09-12 15:29:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The mission - taking out Saddam's regime - was accomplished. Now, we have a new mission - creating a valuable democratic republic that will be our ally in the future.
2007-09-12 14:59:47 · answer #6 · answered by duckkillerdan 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The soldiers on the ship made the sign and put it up! Shame on you. Those troops (just kids) were proud of their accomplishment - why can't you be? Get behind the General and the Administration and do what you can to get the job done! Anybody can tear down...... Doesn't that get old?
2007-09-12 15:02:57 · answer #7 · answered by Mercedes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The mission that was accomplished was the downfall of Saddam Hussein, and since he's dead we don't need to accomplish it again.
2007-09-12 14:59:09 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The mission needs to be re-examined and then redefined. Unfortunately, that won't begin to happen until after January 20, 2009.
2007-09-12 14:59:59 · answer #9 · answered by BOOM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Mission remove Saddam from power
Mission accomplished.
game - set - match
2007-09-12 15:04:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋